It is funny that you are defending the Tea Party as an atheist...
He's not defending the one the media portrays, he's defending the one no one ever hears about.
And they're also extremely conservative and unwilling to compromise.
Well, the media certainly does portray them badly. But it is undeniable they many of them are trying to spread Christian values and whatnot.
The news media is fucking trash if you ask me. They have no business getting into politics and I'm severely contradicting my Libertarian beliefs by saying this, but I think there should be regulations on the news. Stop entertaining and only give unbiased facts.
Well, I think it's kinda inevitable to be entirely unbiased. The people who report the news have their own opinions and it is difficult to report entirely unbiased.
That would be great, but unfortunately will never happen. You can't watch the news without them trying to sway your opinion.
Amen. (not to the Libertarian part, but the media part.) Recently, there was the whole thing about Rick Perry and the birther conspiracy theory, which he pretty much said he doesn't submit to. Before that, there was that whole Hank Williams thing. Now, the other people are talking trash about the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I still don't know who these tea partiers are. All I know is that they are political people...
Conservatives who are against all new taxes even if its for the greater good. Especially when it comes to new taxes on the rich.
You're learning young grasshopper ;)
yay for grasshoppers!
Frankly, I think the Tea Party is indirectly propogating "the lying, cheating, selfish, idiotic way that career politicians run the government"
It's the people on the news (cable news stations that are going all the time, like CNN and Fox) that call themselves Tea Partiers that are crazy and contradictory.
I thought you might enjoy this picture.
It's funny how you use the word 'threatening' in order to prove how not radical the Tea Party is.
Last time I checked, 'threatening' was the sort of thing radicals did.
So if someone was about to kill my family, and I threatened them with violence if they did, I would be a radical? Threatening definitely does not make someone a radical.
Those are two entirely different and pretty much incomparable situations.
Murder =/= Taxation
Your argument is flawed. Threatening something that is bad (the US government) is a good thing. They are pushing for no more taxes, which is also a good thing. The government doesn't need more of our money, they just need to stop spending and borrowing money that they don't have, getting us deeper in debt, causing them to spend and borrow more more money that we don't have. The Tea Party is trying to stop this. They aren't cooperating with the "go along to get along" system of the government. So yes, I suppose they would be called radicals in the same sense the Gandhi, the founding fathers, and Martin Luther King Jr. were called radicals. Going against what was normal of the times for what they know is the greater good.
*Face Palm You're really comparing the Tea Party to Gandhi?!?!
The principle of their actions, not the greatness or impact. Gandhi was infinitely superior.
Sooo...you're saying the oppression of an ENTIRE country is comparable to the agenda of the Tea Party?
What are the values of the "real" tea party?
Chiefly, they oppose new taxes. The government doesn't need more money, they just need to stop spending money that we don't have. They don't follow the policies of the democrats and republicans, which are basically do whatever and say whatever you have to in order to get re-elected. The Tea Party is mostly ordinary citizens that have stepped up and said "We've had enough". They're tired of politicians putting their careers first and country second. Obviously, politicians are getting nothing accomplished, so the Tea Party is going to try their hand at it.
The government doesn't need more money? The government with a debt in the trillions? The government that if they have a marginal tax increase on the rich would save 7 billion dollars over 10 years? That government?
7 billion dollars over 10 years is almost nothing when you look at the big picture. That's like a person that weighs 450 pounds cutting out 30 calories a year. And no, they don't need more money. Quantity isn't the issue. The issue is that they spend money foolishly. I haven't heard of any way that space exploration helps us. If we cut the space program, we could save a bundle. They need to start saving money, not just getting more and more to go and spend. We also need to make a plan for paying off our multi-trillion dollar debt and put it into action. Saying that the government needs more money is like saying Mike Tyson needed more money. No, he just needed to not be an idiot about handling it. He made over $350,000,000. Now he is in debt for millions. If the government deserves more money, so does Mike Tyson.
I'll throw him a few bucks. But cutting the space program is an interesting idea. I still couldn't vote for any tea party candidate because they are some dumb motherfuckers.
How much would cutting the space program save? Isn't it some really big number, like $315 billion or something?
I really don't know the exact figures. But yeah, I'm sure it's a huge number.
Wouldn't this not really solve our problem since it is still only a small fraction of the total debt? Also, hasn't the shuttle program already been cut? I just looked online and this was what cost so much money.
Hmmm. That's really really interesting. Are there any ideas like this in congress?
I think there is one. But I doubt it's going to go anywhere, because no one agree on what to cut.
Well you can't cut from all programs, but they need to cut somewhere.
Or...they could start taxing people that already have millions of dollars. You know, instead, of bitchslapping the poor.
They still need to cut somewhere. I agree with taxing the rich and I agree with spending cuts. You can't cut from all programs (like some that help the poor), but there is wasteful spending. You're probably thinking "WTF!? A MIXED PLAN! YOU MEAN BEING TOO RADICAL IN EITHER DIRECTION IS BAD?!". Well, yes that's what i'm saying.
No? I actually agree with you. I kinda assumed you were one of those radical conservatives...so that's actually kind of funny... What would you consider wasteful spending, though?
I actually lean closer to the left on most issues. About specifics, I would have to look up some things. I do know there are places that some money can be sacrificed.
Hm... What's your opinion of the tea party?
Then again so are the people on the "occupy wall street movement".
I agree with what they stand for, but I think there are those idiots that are bringing them down.
Yeah. There are good ideas in there.
From what I've seen on television, they're idiots.
No, cutting the space program wouldn't solve the problem. But it's a good start. My idea is to cut everything by 3-5% and put the none saved toward the debt. If we spend 1 billion dollars per area, and cut 5%, that means we save $50,000,000 on each program. Multiply that by every program
And it certainly adds up tona considerable amount. And 1 mil per project is a huge underestimate.