Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 172

Thread: Is the Tea Party Crazy or Just Nuts?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352

    Is the Tea Party Crazy or Just Nuts?

    Good article...

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/2...-crazy-or-just

    Is the Tea Party Crazy or Just Nuts?
    The media praises far-left politicians while demonizing advocates of limited government.
    A. Barton Hinkle | July 26, 2011
    The late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was a man of the hard left—"the Senate's most liberal member," as Mickey Kaus once termed him in the liberal online journal Slate. Wellstone opposed the first Iraq War—and the second one. He was no friend of the Second Amendment—or the First. He thought the government should strictly control campaign ads by groups such as the Sierra Club and the NRA. Even The New York Times, which supports the rationing of political speech, called Wellstone's idea a proposal "of questionable constitutionality."
    Wellstone died in a plane crash in 2002, and was immediate lionized. The Washington Post called him one of the Senate's "leading liberals. . . . Colleagues from across the political spectrum praised Wellstone as a passionate advocate for his beliefs." He was "a hero to the left," the paper said, noting "there was little doubt where his heart lay." To The New York Times, Wellstone was "a rumpled, unfailingly modest man," a "firebrand," and although "his opponents always portrayed him as a left-wing extremist," Wellstone was "so happy, so comfortable, so unthreatening that he was able to ward off the attacks." Rumor has it he once fed a crowd with five loaves of bread and a couple of fish.
    This is not, to put it mildly, how Tea Partiers and their congressional cohort have been portrayed during the recent game of chicken over the debt ceiling. Rather, those opposed to raising the debt ceiling—or willing to do so in exchange for a slowdown in the rate of government growth—are "obstreperous," "flatly and dangerously wrong," and "not interested in governing." (These are all quotes from major media organs, not obscure blogs.) They're "crazy" proponents of a "dangerous delusion"—"ridiculous," "extremist," "ultraorthodox tax haters," players of "ideological games," "totally unrealistic," authors of "madness," etc. etc.
    Hey, what happened to people of conviction? Aren't the Tea Partiers "firebrands"? Isn't there little doubt where their hearts lie?
    Rather than praise Tea Partiers as passionate advocates for their beliefs, many in the press have taken to marginalizing them with mean-spirited attacks on their sanity. Wellstone, who championed the rights of the mentally ill, would not be proud.
    At this point it might be useful to clarify precisely what the dispute concerns. The question is not whether the federal government should grow. As Reason's Nick Gillespie pointed out a few days ago, nearly nobody in Washington has actually proposed shrinking the leviathan. To the contrary, the dispute is whether to raise federal spending from the current $3.8 trillion to $4.7 trillion over the next decade (the Paul Ryan plan)—or to $5.7 trillion (the Obama plan).
    Bear in mind that those increases would come on top of one of the fastest expansions of federal spending in U.S. history. When President Obama took office, the budget stood at $2.9 trillion. Two. Point. Nine.
    Spending has risen 30 percent in the past three years. It is quite a feat to grow federal spending faster than the Bush administration: Under Bush, domestic discretionary spending rose faster than at any time since the Lyndon Johnson administration.
    If Bush floored the accelerator, then Obama lit the afterburners. And nobody in Washington (except Sen. Rand Paul and perhaps Sen. Tom Coburn) has suggested applying the brakes. For the most part, the cuts being discussed are reductions in the rate of future growth. What does that mean? This: (a) your rent is $10,000 this year; (b) you thought you were going to spend $15,000 next year; but (c) you've decided to spend only $12,000—therefore, (d) you've "cut" your housing expenses by $3,000.
    Washington already spends quite enough, thank you very much. But to say this is not (as some on the left have snidely suggested) to argue that big business and the rich should not help solve the debt problem. They certainly should—and programs benefitting the well-off should be first on the chopping block: farm subsidies, export promotion, and so on. Welfare for big corporations should disappear entirely before the first dollar of welfare for poor individuals is touched. Likewise, the Defense Department needs to go on a diet. (Coburn's plan has a host of suggestions about how to put it on one.)
    You won't find Tea Party activists cheering on corporate welfare, either. They're not exactly lining up to defend the Agriculture Department's market-access program, the Commerce Department's research grants (read: handouts) to high-tech companies, or the U.S. Maritime Administration's loan guarantees to help facilitate the purchase of ships from U.S. shipyards. Many of them and their ideological compatriots would be more than happy to cut those government programs, and plenty more. Rand Paul would eliminate the Commerce and Energy Departments entirely, for instance.
    You'd think liberals would be glad to hear it. But they are not, because those ideas are part of the overall tea party belief that government cannot continue to grow at an ever-accelerating rate—a belief now dismissed as not only wrong, but clinically insane.
    The sad part? By Washington standards, it probably is.
    A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    I would vote crazy.

    Paul Wellstone never tried to grind the country into fiscal suicide.
    Last edited by FF2®; 08-01-2011 at 11:14 PM.

  3. #3
    Moderator VIP Visionary
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,178
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    I would vote crazy.

    Paul Wellstone never tried to grind the country into fiscal suicide.
    What a tragedy.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Nuts.


  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    I was gonna start a similar thread, thanks for saving me the effort.

    Are they crazy or nuts?

    How about both... and throw in RACIST for good measure.

    Tea Party Congressman called Obama "Tar Baby" on Radio

    Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), used the term to describe President Obama in a statewide radio interview on Friday. You can listen to that interview here, Here's the key excerpt:

    LAMBORN: Even if some people say "well, the Republicans should have done this, or should have done that," they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don't even want to be associated with him, it's like touching a, a tar baby and you get it...you know you're stuck and you're part of the problem and you can't get away.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,325
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    I was gonna start a similar thread, thanks for saving me the effort.

    Are they crazy or nuts?

    How about both... and throw in RACIST for good measure.
    Yeah, it's obvious he meant the tar reference as a racial slur . . .

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    Yeah, it's obvious he meant the tar reference as a racial slur . . .
    Honestly, you want to pretend that Obama's race wasn't a factor for a lot of people joining the tea party?

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    Yeah, it's obvious he meant the tar reference as a racial slur . . .
    Yes, its clear he used TAR BABY in the non-racial way TAR BABY is often used.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Yes, its clear he used TAR BABY in the non-racial way TAR BABY is often used.
    "Tar Baby" refers to something that once you touch it you are stuck and can't get out of. Only someone looking for a racist slight would find one there. I guess you think the word "niggardly" is racist too even though it has nothing to do with the slur it just sounds similar and has absolutely no association.

    In my high school history book they change "Pot calling a kettle black" to "pot calling a kettle names" to not be racist. Of course then the statement makes no sense what so ever. Pots back then were black from the fire as were kettles, nothing racist about it.

    The really racist thing is thinking "black" is a bad word or derogatory on its own.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,032
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Yes, its clear he used TAR BABY in the non-racial way TAR BABY is often used.
    The term is most certainly offensive and racist. But in context it is clear he was going for the "tar" reference and instead went with the racial slur to make the point. Regrettable to be sure. Racist on his part? Latently, I suppose. Either way, it cannot be excused.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Honestly, you want to pretend that Obama's race wasn't a factor for a lot of people joining the tea party?
    Honestly yes race has absolutely nothing to do with it. The movement is about balancing the budget. Race is not a factor. I don't think Alan Keys or Herman Cain are racist.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    "Tar Baby" refers to something that once you touch it you are stuck and can't get out of. Only someone looking for a racist slight would find one there. I guess you think the word "niggardly" is racist too even though it has nothing to do with the slur it just sounds similar and has absolutely no association.

    In my high school history book they change "Pot calling a kettle black" to "pot calling a kettle names" to not be racist. Of course then the statement makes no sense what so ever. Pots back then were black from the fire as were kettles, nothing racist about it.

    The really racist thing is thinking "black" is a bad word or derogatory on its own.
    I have never heard the tar baby expression. Its hard to judge the comment in that regard. It seems clear in the rest of the statement that he was using the stick tar reference but if the expression has been used as a racial slur in the past that would be inappropriate. I'm not convinced that it is used as a slur.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    The term is most certainly offensive and racist. But in context it is clear he was going for the "tar" reference and instead went with the racial slur to make the point. Regrettable to be sure. Racist on his part? Latently, I suppose. Either way, it cannot be excused.
    Actually it may be used to be a racial slur but a "tar baby" was originally used to mean something that once it was touched you only got pulled in further the harder you fought. Only people looking to create racial issues wouldn't see that. Just like thinking anything with the word "black" in it is racist. How about the word "niggardly"? People that use that word are often called racists.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Actually it may be used to be a racial slur but a "tar baby" was originally used to mean something that once it was touched you only got pulled in further the harder you fought. Only people looking to create racial issues wouldn't see that. Just like thinking anything with the word "black" in it is racist. How about the word "niggardly"? People that use that word are often called racists.

    From Wiki:
    The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.

    [1] The tar baby is a trap that should be avoided.


    Psychologist Alfred Adler uses the term to frame one of his counseling theory concepts, calling it "avoiding the tar baby". It refers to the need to avoid getting stuck in the client's perception of the problem when that perception is based on faulty assumptions.

    They go on to say that there can be racial connotations associated with the expression. John Kerry himself was once criticized for using it. Is he racist? Who knows. Anyway this one is a sketchy one. Definitely not an indication of racism in the one that said it but probably an inappropriate term to use when referring to a black president regardless because of the way it can be interpreted.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Honestly yes race has absolutely nothing to do with it. The movement is about balancing the budget. Race is not a factor. I don't think Alan Keys or Herman Cain are racist.

    Only people looking to be overly sensative and without any desire to find out the real meaning of something would take this as racist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    From Wiki:
    The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories.
    ah yes the Uncle Remus stories. Great family entertainment for tea party children.



    also from Wiki:

    "The Oxford English Dictionary lists "tar baby" as a derogatory term for a black or a Maori."

    (and yes John kerry is probably a racist too. He lives in Boston after all)
    Last edited by bitonti; 08-02-2011 at 10:35 AM.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    From Wiki:
    The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.

    [1] The tar baby is a trap that should be avoided.


    Psychologist Alfred Adler uses the term to frame one of his counseling theory concepts, calling it "avoiding the tar baby". It refers to the need to avoid getting stuck in the client's perception of the problem when that perception is based on faulty assumptions.

    They go on to say that there can be racial connotations associated with the expression. John Kerry himself was once criticized for using it. Is he racist? Who knows. Anyway this one is a sketchy one. Definitely not an indication of racism in the one that said it but probably an inappropriate term to use when referring to a black president regardless because of the way it can be interpreted.
    I totaly disagree. I think it is racist to avoid petty arguements like this when using a wholey non-racist term just because of someone's race.

    This is just like the American press calling Lennox Lewis an "African American" rather than black even though he is neither African or American.

    http://www.gelfmagazine.com/gelflog/..._unlike_me.php

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    I totaly disagree. I think it is racist to avoid petty arguements like this when using a wholey non-racist term just because of someone's race.
    Tar baby is a racist term from a racist set of stories. The Song of the South was the movie version of the Uncle Remus tales. There's no non-racist usage of tar-baby.

    But I applaud the right wingers for trying to spin this. It's amusing.

    "actually the representative was a time traveler, from the year 1920 and back then tar baby was a-ok to say"

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    ah yes the Uncle Remus stories. Great family entertainment for tea party children.



    also from Wiki:

    "The Oxford English Dictionary lists "tar baby" as a derogatory term for a black or a Maori."

    (and yes John kerry is probably a racist too. He lives in Boston after all)
    Way to cherry pick the only line in the whole article claiming it is racist. Also Song of the South is a good movie and great Americana. Uncle Remus is looked up to by the children and is a good man. Again, there is only a problem if you want to create one. Take it for what it is as a product of its times.

    Dr. Suess' early works could be considered racist, especially his anti-Japanese WWII comics. Again he was a product of his times and ended his career writing books speaking of tolerance and inclusion such as the sneeches.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    Tar baby is a racist term from a racist set of stories. The Song of the South was the movie version of the Uncle Remus tales. There's no non-racist usage of tar-baby.

    But I applaud the right wingers for trying to spin this. It's amusing.

    "actually the representative was a time traveler, from the year 1920 and back then tar baby was a-ok to say"
    Did you read any of the Wikipedia article other than the one line you cherry picked? Have you watched song of the south?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us