If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   "If young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party"   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 203
    More: Stupid, young voters, Americans, Edmund Burke, liberal democracy, defined benefit, political philosophers, Niall Ferguson, economic interests  
•       •       •

3497 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2012 at 6:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-17 08:28:30 PM

Oxygen_Thief: I said fundamentalist christian..to be fair.


Indeed...mea culpa.
 
2012-06-17 08:28:54 PM
Let's have compulsory military service and be done with it. To be honest, it's the only way to keep these endless wars going. You've got to replace the one soldier a day that is committing suicide.

The Tea Party can be recruiters.
 
2012-06-17 08:28:59 PM

kmmontandon: Weaver95: RobertBruce: Their misguided idealism farks with their abilities to do basic math.

actually, if people 'do the math' then they sure as hell won't vote tea party.


Numbers have a liberal bias.


So does reality in general.
 
2012-06-17 08:29:04 PM
markc1.typepad.com

BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?
 
2012-06-17 08:29:10 PM
Maybe the young voters could form the Tea Party into something actually libertarian and not a club for guys with oversized belt buckles who if given the opportunity will corner you and explain for half an hour how Hillary had Vince Foster beamed up by a UFO.
 
2012-06-17 08:30:02 PM

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks:
Nucleus: Corporations are NOT people. The Roberts court must be dismantled.

Ah. Well, please explain exactly how you would go about that.

actually, that's the easiest part - just have Congress start writing laws that say 'corporations are not people' and nailing down the limits, rights and privileges of corporations. the GOP will scream bloody murder, of course....but meh.


ahh while I agree with the sentiment it is not that easy. The whole thing on citizens united is that money talks...therefore it is a form of speech...therefore congress "shall make no law" etc etc.

That said I tend to be a Kennedy fan but I hate how this case was framed in the opinion, the worst parts of it were in dicta.
 
2012-06-17 08:31:29 PM
Governments should be more honest about the size of their debts and young voters would be wise to get politicians to pay them off as soon as possible, says economic historian Niall Ferguson in the first of his BBC

Really because back in 2000 when the US was running a budget surplus there was worry about paying of the national debt.



Link
 
2012-06-17 08:32:23 PM

Weaver95: actually, that's the easiest part - just have Congress start writing laws that say 'corporations are not people' and nailing down the limits, rights and privileges of corporations. the GOP will scream bloody murder, of course....but meh.


Firstly, that would not 'dismantle' the SCOTUS as the other poster suggested.

Also, that piece of legislation you mentioned has been deemed legally appropriate by SCOTUS, so they did write laws that are perfectly legal. As with most things with SCOTUS, we want to get rid of them when they don't vote a certain way, and believe they are just and wise when they do vote in favor of something you do like.
 
2012-06-17 08:33:58 PM
What bothers me most about the Tea Party isn't really their stated political views (not to say I agree with all of them of course), it's how they tend to romanticize the idea of a violent overthrow of the government.

Revolutions are bloody and brutal things. Sometime to be engaged in only reluctantly, when all other avenues have been completely sealed shut. If we were to have a full-scale civil war in a country as large and well-armed as the United States, we could easily be looking at millions of casualties. Not to mention economic turmoil lasting for decades after the fact, and a potentially permanent fracturing of the country. If there are any long-term benefits at all, it will probably be over a generation before they begin to outweigh the problems.

May it one day become inevitable? With the extreme polarization we are experiencing that may very well be true. But we should be trying to pull ourselves back from that abyss, not push outsides over.
 
2012-06-17 08:34:12 PM

Gulper Eel: Maybe the young voters could form the Tea Party into something actually libertarian and not a club for guys with oversized belt buckles who if given the opportunity will corner you and explain for half an hour how Hillary had Vince Foster beamed up by a UFO.


That could never happen. Jonah Goldberg has insisted that we're too stupid to vote and should be beaten until we agree with our elders.
 
2012-06-17 08:34:29 PM

WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?


Has anyone found a single founding father who knows what today's government and political realities are to make an informed decision about anything not based on 18th century knowledge and philosophy?
 
2012-06-17 08:34:37 PM
thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.comthisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com
The Teahaddists stand no chance against the Anti-Romney tide!

/these people of pallor will not be ignored!
//Give 'em hell Brad Woodhouse!
 
2012-06-17 08:37:02 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: actually, that's the easiest part - just have Congress start writing laws that say 'corporations are not people' and nailing down the limits, rights and privileges of corporations. the GOP will scream bloody murder, of course....but meh.

Firstly, that would not 'dismantle' the SCOTUS as the other poster suggested.

Also, that piece of legislation you mentioned has been deemed legally appropriate by SCOTUS, so they did write laws that are perfectly legal. As with most things with SCOTUS, we want to get rid of them when they don't vote a certain way, and believe they are just and wise when they do vote in favor of something you do like.


oh I don't care about SCOTUS. they'll eventually die off on their own. Congress is the regulatory agency - it's THEIR job to define what a corporation can and cannot do. SCOTUS merely makes up excuses to shoot down their laws.
 
2012-06-17 08:38:03 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Has anyone found a single founding father who knows what today's government and political realities are to make an informed decision about anything not based on 18th century knowledge and philosophy?


Justice Scalia tries a lot.
 
2012-06-17 08:39:42 PM

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: actually, that's the easiest part - just have Congress start writing laws that say 'corporations are not people' and nailing down the limits, rights and privileges of corporations. the GOP will scream bloody murder, of course....but meh.

Firstly, that would not 'dismantle' the SCOTUS as the other poster suggested.

Also, that piece of legislation you mentioned has been deemed legally appropriate by SCOTUS, so they did write laws that are perfectly legal. As with most things with SCOTUS, we want to get rid of them when they don't vote a certain way, and believe they are just and wise when they do vote in favor of something you do like.

oh I don't care about SCOTUS. they'll eventually die off on their own. Congress is the regulatory agency - it's THEIR job to define what a corporation can and cannot do. SCOTUS merely makes up excuses to shoot down their laws.


Nobody likes Congress. There are plenty of good congrescritters, but they act like pre-school children given a six pack of Jolt and a staple gun when in large groups.
 
2012-06-17 08:41:04 PM

Oxygen_Thief: 3_Butt_Cheeks: WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Has anyone found a single founding father who knows what today's government and political realities are to make an informed decision about anything not based on 18th century knowledge and philosophy?

Justice Scalia tries a lot.


I was going Ginsburg, but good lulz.
 
2012-06-17 08:41:37 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks:
Nobody likes Congress. There are plenty of good congrescritters, but they act like pre-school children given a six pack of Jolt and a staple gun when in large groups.


We keep voting out the Republican (and the tea party keeps knocking out Republicans with seniority) we've got a chance.
 
2012-06-17 08:43:09 PM

Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks:
Nobody likes Congress. There are plenty of good congrescritters, but they act like pre-school children given a six pack of Jolt and a staple gun when in large groups.

We keep voting out the Republican (and the tea party keeps knocking out Republicans with seniority) we've got a chance.


I'm sure that is reasonable from your perspective.
 
2012-06-17 08:43:15 PM
Professor Ferguson,

Sorry, I am not joining a racist, anti-intellectual party. This is not "good for me" or anyone else. I believe the BNP also broadly supports austerity measures, so why don't you join them? You first.

Signed,

A Former Student of Yours
 
2012-06-17 08:43:32 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com

dekerivers.files.wordpress.com

/ok....

www.cottonrohrscheib.com
 
2012-06-17 08:44:40 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Has anyone found a single founding father who knows what today's government and political realities are to make an informed decision about anything not based on 18th century knowledge and philosophy?


Well the Tea Party people sure seem to think they would have the support of the founding fathers. Also that 18th century philosophy when it comes to government still works very well. Indeed we're to a good degree governed by it.

Oxygen_Thief: Justice Scalia tries a lot.


Actually he doesn't. Scalia's decisions are born of thinking that's not even as old as he is.
 
2012-06-17 08:45:53 PM
It's funny how austerity measure never involve cuts to defense spending. Wait, funny isn't the word. It's predictable.
 
2012-06-17 08:47:05 PM

relcec: it is only fair, the young need to see their taxes hiked to pay for all the tax cuts the boomers republicans voted for themselves over the last 40 years.


please be accurate.
 
2012-06-17 08:49:13 PM
i.imgur.com

Yup, Fox News, firin' its guns
and ringin its bells to warn the British!

Yoooouuuuuuuu betcha!

::thoroughly obnoxious wink::


/off in the distance:
HAR HAR HAR HAR
HAR HAR HAR HAR
HAR HAR HAR HAR
HAR HAR HAR HAR
 
2012-06-17 08:49:26 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks:
Nobody likes Congress. There are plenty of good congrescritters, but they act like pre-school children given a six pack of Jolt and a staple gun when in large groups.

We keep voting out the Republican (and the tea party keeps knocking out Republicans with seniority) we've got a chance.

I'm sure that is reasonable from your perspective.


I, for one, fully support Tea party efforts to weaken and destroy the GOP from within. Keep going after incumbents and making 'em lose primary races! that's just amazingly awesome!
 
2012-06-17 08:50:04 PM

JAYoung: MrEricSir: Unless you're dressing up like Native Americans and destroying merchandise to protest taxation without representation, you aren't part of any real Tea Party and have no business claiming any such association.

... and that taxation was to protect the great grand-daddy of multi-national corporations, the East India Company.


The taxation was because someone had to pay for the French Indian war, which the colonist wanted, but not England.
 
2012-06-17 08:50:58 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Weaver95: actually, that's the easiest part - just have Congress start writing laws that say 'corporations are not people' and nailing down the limits, rights and privileges of corporations. the GOP will scream bloody murder, of course....but meh.

Firstly, that would not 'dismantle' the SCOTUS as the other poster suggested.

Also, that piece of legislation you mentioned has been deemed legally appropriate by SCOTUS, so they did write laws that are perfectly legal. As with most things with SCOTUS, we want to get rid of them when they don't vote a certain way, and believe they are just and wise when they do vote in favor of something you do like.

oh I don't care about SCOTUS. they'll eventually die off on their own. Congress is the regulatory agency - it's THEIR job to define what a corporation can and cannot do. SCOTUS merely makes up excuses to shoot down their laws.

Nobody likes Congress. There are plenty of good congrescritters, but they act like pre-school children given a six pack of Jolt and a staple gun when in large groups.


You really only dislike them if they have (d) next to their name. farking lying Fark Independents(tm).
 
2012-06-17 08:51:02 PM
Oh, man, fark Niall Ferguson. I read one of his 'history' books once, and it was amazing. It started out as straight history, but the closer to today it got, the derpier it got. By the time it got around to covering living right-wing tools, you could practically see their cum dribbling down his chin.

The Beeb and PBS have both decided that airing his oh-so-sensible-sounding clap-trap is somehow a good idea. Keeps the mouth-breathers happy, I guess. Shame on them both.
 
2012-06-17 08:51:03 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Has anyone found a single founding father who knows what today's government and political realities are to make an informed decision about anything not based on 18th century knowledge and philosophy?


Benjamin Franklin

He had a habit of thinking about things in a decidedly 20th century point of view. The man invented the lightning rod, the concept of a fire department, and insurance. He devised that a postal system would be required to interconnect all of the disparate parts of our country, and had that concept enshrined in the responsibilities of congress. He urged Jefferson to use the term "We hold these truths to be self evident", instead of "as given by God" in the Declaration of independence. He was "blogging" before we had the concept of blogs.

And one of these days, I expect to run into his ass at a Cafe after he explains that he also invented the Time Machine.
 
2012-06-17 08:51:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: [markc1.typepad.com image 580x377]

BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?


Does Benedict Arnold count as a Founding Father?
 
2012-06-17 08:53:08 PM
So i guess we've run out of true blue Americans to feed us this crap that now we have to find Brits to lecture us on this tired conservative BS.
 
2012-06-17 08:53:42 PM

gimmegimme: WhyteRaven74: [markc1.typepad.com image 580x377]

BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Does Benedict Arnold count as a Founding Father?


Given teabagger desire for an hereditary monarchy, I'm sure they'll get to rehabilitating him as soon as they're done having Reagan declared an Official State God, like Augustus.
 
2012-06-17 08:53:49 PM

gimmegimme: Does Benedict Arnold count as a Founding Father?


Niiiiice :)
 
2012-06-17 08:53:53 PM

Darth_Lukecash: JAYoung: MrEricSir: Unless you're dressing up like Native Americans and destroying merchandise to protest taxation without representation, you aren't part of any real Tea Party and have no business claiming any such association.

... and that taxation was to protect the great grand-daddy of multi-national corporations, the East India Company.

The taxation was because someone had to pay for the French Indian war, which the colonist wanted, but not England.


Wasn't the French and Indian war just the North American portion of the seven years war?
 
2012-06-17 08:55:16 PM
The Tea Party represents my interests about as well as Darkseid does.
 
2012-06-17 08:55:44 PM

gimmegimme: WhyteRaven74: [markc1.typepad.com image 580x377]

BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Does Benedict Arnold count as a Founding Father?


Very much so. Sure, he sold us out in the end. But without him, it was doubtful we would have won the Battle of Saratoga. Without that victory at Saratoga, we wouldn't have been able to garner support from the French. The French Navy kept the British from either reinforcing or evacuating Yorktown, leading to the surrender of Cornwallis and the end to the Revolutionary War.

/Fun fact, "West Point" was originally going to be named "Fort Arnold."
 
2012-06-17 09:00:14 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: the surrender of Cornwallis


In 1772 Cornwallis, who at that point had never been to the colonies, gave a speech in Parliament that if how the colonies were being handled didn't change and fast there would be big problems down the road. Funny how history works out.
 
2012-06-17 09:03:17 PM
Really? The Tea Party? The same people who voted to try to stop the government from paying their debts and wanted absolutely no revenue increases in any form? Those are the politicians who will "pay them off as soon as possible"?
 
2012-06-17 09:06:48 PM

WhyteRaven74: Evil Twin Skippy: the surrender of Cornwallis

In 1772 Cornwallis, who at that point had never been to the colonies, gave a speech in Parliament that if how the colonies were being handled didn't change and fast there would be big problems down the road. Funny how history works out.


My understanding that he even gave pro-colonial speeches in parliament. I can't remember were I saw that.
 
2012-06-17 09:08:45 PM
Just prior apparently.
 
2012-06-17 09:10:11 PM
The fact that anyone could be so stupid to desire higher taxes is beyond comprehension. If you want a level plying field then you want less regulation. Opportunity is the problem not wealth redistribution.
 
2012-06-17 09:11:16 PM

WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?


Probably not, but I absolutely promise you they wouldn't support the big government social programs that liberal politicians use to keep people dependent on government.

Precisely because they know it keeps people dependent on government.

That's what makes this effort by liberals to rename themselves "progressives", because progress is somehow tied to going back to total government control of everything... Which was precisely the idea this country was founded against... Government control is not progress. Freedom from government is progress.
 
2012-06-17 09:14:11 PM

randomjsa: WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Probably not, but I absolutely promise you they wouldn't support the big government social programs that liberal politicians use to keep people dependent on government.

Precisely because they know it keeps people dependent on government.

That's what makes this effort by liberals to rename themselves "progressives", because progress is somehow tied to going back to total government control of everything... Which was precisely the idea this country was founded against... Government control is not progress. Freedom from government is progress.


why is that only the people who use the word progressive or secular-humanist are righty right Mcrightsts, who do not understand how government works.
 
2012-06-17 09:17:09 PM

bigsteve3OOO: The fact that anyone could be so stupid to desire higher taxes is beyond comprehension. If you want a level plying field then you want less regulation. Opportunity is the problem not wealth redistribution.


It's called being realistic. The various programs and projects the U.S. is involved in, including the wars, cost more than the government is taking in through tax revenues.

Cutting taxes and then deciding to start a war in Iraq made absolutely no sense. That was like someone quitting their job, taking a job that paid less, and then deciding to buy a more expensive house.
 
2012-06-17 09:18:10 PM

bigsteve3OOO: The fact that anyone could be so stupid to desire higher taxes is beyond comprehension. If you want a level plying field then you want less regulation. Opportunity is the problem not wealth redistribution.


If stupid was people this post would be China.
 
2012-06-17 09:20:06 PM

randomjsa: WhyteRaven74: BTW has anyone found a single founding father who would support the Tea Party?

Probably not, but I absolutely promise you they wouldn't support the big government social programs that liberal politicians use to keep people dependent on government.

Precisely because they know it keeps people dependent on government.

That's what makes this effort by liberals to rename themselves "progressives", because progress is somehow tied to going back to total government control of everything... Which was precisely the idea this country was founded against... Government control is not progress. Freedom from government is progress.


Care to explain why the Whisky Rebellion was quashed by Washington himself, then?

I won't hold my breath.
 
2012-06-17 09:24:02 PM

Oxygen_Thief: My understanding that he even gave pro-colonial speeches in parliament. I can't remember were I saw that.


He did. And it's shown up in any number of history books, a couple Cracked lists, a few tv programs about the American Revolution etc. Even a college level US History survey course will mention it most likely.
 
2012-06-17 09:30:11 PM

bigsteve3OOO: The fact that anyone could be so stupid to desire higher taxes is beyond comprehension. If you want a level plying field then you want less regulation. Opportunity is the problem not wealth redistribution.


I'll put it to you this way. You have two potential suppliers for services.

One supplier has a monopoly and ubiquitously supplies to all, and charges according to what they can pay. The level of service provided and fees charged are kept in check by the fact that the stakeholder get to vote their representatives in or out of management, and they also control who is the CEO.

The other supplier has a monopoly. But they have no mandate to supply to all. In fact, they only provide services where they can economically derive the most benefit. Their fees are kept in check by virtue of if they charge too much people learn to live without. Management answers only to people who stand to profit from their operations.

And for the record, no. There is no free market in any industry for which there is a natural monopoly. Utilities, Health Care, Energy. All of these economies are zero sum games where the physics of nature and logistics dictate that there can be only one. No "startup" can afford to build a delivery network from scratch. Nobody can bootstrap a hospital from a neighbor's borrowed shed. The next great source of power isn't going to come from a lab in New Jersey. All of these things work on macroscopic economies of scale.

There is no natural transition from a lemonade stand to a fortune 500 company. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. And it sure ain't lemonade.
 
2012-06-17 09:32:29 PM

stoli n coke: bigsteve3OOO: The fact that anyone could be so stupid to desire higher taxes is beyond comprehension. If you want a level plying field then you want less regulation. Opportunity is the problem not wealth redistribution.

It's called being realistic. The various programs and projects the U.S. is involved in, including the wars, cost more than the government is taking in through tax revenues.

Cutting taxes and then deciding to start a war in Iraq made absolutely no sense. That was like someone quitting their job, taking a job that paid less, and then deciding to buy a more expensive house.


While telling his kids (as he polished the new BMW) that he couldn't possibly help them with this month's tuition because they needed to pay as they go. Oh... and co-sign on the loan for this sweet, sweet ride.
 
2012-06-17 09:36:24 PM
CTRL+F: "defense"

No matches found.

Hmm...unless you guys are willing to put defense on the table, why should I take any of these clowns (Tea Party) seriously?
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report