Not sure how reliable this source is, but if you scroll to the bottom you'll see some pics of protestors and their signs.
https://www.onewhiteduck.com/2010/09/17/tea-partys-clear-cut-racial-bigotry-is-hard-to-ignore/
White supremacist executed
- Thread starter Lejuan
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Status
Not sure how reliable this source is, but if you scroll to the bottom you'll see some pics of protestors and their signs.
https://www.onewhiteduck.com/2010/09/17/tea-partys-clear-cut-racial-bigotry-is-hard-to-ignore/
I'm not trying to defend the Tea Party, but just like any organization, you're going to have your radicals. Whether it be anti-abortion, anti-war, PETA, ELF, there are radicals in all the groups.
For the most part the Tea Party is misunderstood. It's a group that wants to get back to the roots of what made this nation great, and no that does not mean slavery. Small government, a balanced budget, less government intervention in our lives. Shouldn't that be what most American tax payers want?
As far as the signs go, sure, some of them are outright racist. Some of them are taken out of context also. The One with Obama as a witch doctor has nothing to do with his skin color but the idea that his health care plan will lower the standards of care so it'll be like a witch doctor is treating you.
ETA I Googled The Tea Party comics and came across a link saying The Tea Party denounces the comic and that none of the big names in the Tea Party has anything to do with it. Believe what you will. Other then the yahoo that has the "N" word clearly written on his sign, none of the other signs are overtly racist. All because someone may believe that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim does not make them a racist.
Last edited:
very true. I do agree there. All it takes are a few bad apples.
Last edited:
CollectorNC
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,611
- Reaction score
- 1
depends if they workout or not.Yeah but the bad apples from PETA are always naked, so is that so bad?
devilof76
Super Freak
There have always been racists jumping on anti-government bandwagons. It has made criticising anti-government movements a field day for those who want a more socialized society. What's interesting is how insistent the left has been in linking pro-freedom groups with racism. They know that if they tried to argue on economic grounds, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It would become quickly obvious that socialism weakens and economy and that capitalism strengthens it. Their argument for the economic benefits amounts to an argument for income equality, which has nothing to do with economic growth/health.
The incidence of racist participation in Tea Party rallies has been rare, and often manufactured, but those racists are not a radical form of the pro-freedom movement. They are the opposite, and have far more in common with those who do, in fact, seek to enslave this country's most productive. They see something that opposes a black President and they ride on the coattails, but they are not welcome. That's a huge difference from alleged radicals involved with PETA, Earth First, etc. Those groups are radical/militant and the only thing that separates the worst of them from the not-as-bad is that one advocates violence, and the other only advocate government force. The moderates disdain the militants because they make for bad press, but there is no disagreement on principle, so I see no meaningful difference.
The incidence of racist participation in Tea Party rallies has been rare, and often manufactured, but those racists are not a radical form of the pro-freedom movement. They are the opposite, and have far more in common with those who do, in fact, seek to enslave this country's most productive. They see something that opposes a black President and they ride on the coattails, but they are not welcome. That's a huge difference from alleged radicals involved with PETA, Earth First, etc. Those groups are radical/militant and the only thing that separates the worst of them from the not-as-bad is that one advocates violence, and the other only advocate government force. The moderates disdain the militants because they make for bad press, but there is no disagreement on principle, so I see no meaningful difference.
wHySoSeRiOuS203
Super Freak
we need to bring back the good ole hangins!
jonny88
Super Freak
Back in the day if you stole someone horse you were hanged on the spot. Now if you steal a car you get a slap on the wrist.
I think it's all about balance. Swing too far to the right, you let capitalism go unfettered with deregulation and rules which only favor the rich wall street traders and business CEOs -then you get into a situation that nearly destroys our economy. Swing too far to the left, you get too much gov spending and inefficiency. There needs to be a healthy balance. There are benefits to both Government and capitalism. They don't have to be mutually exclusive-like how our current politicians are trying to sell.
I believe there needs to be a healthy mix where Gov and business can work together because ultimately, they are interdependent. You can't have one without the other in a healthy economy. Both have their good and bad points and both play vital roles for our economy. Let's just hope our politicians adopt the goods from both and discard the bads. Swinging too far to the left, or too far to the right just tends to breed trouble. Remember, everything in moderation.
Sorry for getting off track.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
The only benefit of government is that is protects our natural rights, which in practice means our lives and property, and our unobstructed freedom to live, and to use our property to that end.
The idea that there has to be a balance between left and right is a composite of two fallacies. The first is that in capitalism, the law favors the rich. The second is that in socialism, the law protects the poor. (Also, which politicians have you ever seen advocate one way over the other? We have had a mixed system since the turn of the last century and every politician I've ever heard open their mouth has advocated a balance between the extremes. That is the system that resulted in this downturn.)
In fact, individualism is the political system which protects the rights of the individual, which means that no one is favored on account of economic status. The resultant economic system under such a legal philosophy is capitalism. Yes, there are those who benefit more when everyone is free to achieve their highest or lowest potential. Nature did not grant us all equal gifts, and even if she did, nothing says that any one of us can or will use those gifts to the best of our ability.
On the other hand, collectivism is the political system which protects the rights of society, and since society is not an entity, but an abstract perspective on a group of separate individuals, such a system necessarily protects some individuals at the expense of others. Socialism is the economic system that results from collectivist legal codes and it's necessary economic consequence is stagnation at best, total collapse, total control, and total war at worst.
The balance between the two is like balancing food with poison, and as recent history bears testament to, food is not the side that wins when you compromise one with the other.
The idea that there has to be a balance between left and right is a composite of two fallacies. The first is that in capitalism, the law favors the rich. The second is that in socialism, the law protects the poor. (Also, which politicians have you ever seen advocate one way over the other? We have had a mixed system since the turn of the last century and every politician I've ever heard open their mouth has advocated a balance between the extremes. That is the system that resulted in this downturn.)
In fact, individualism is the political system which protects the rights of the individual, which means that no one is favored on account of economic status. The resultant economic system under such a legal philosophy is capitalism. Yes, there are those who benefit more when everyone is free to achieve their highest or lowest potential. Nature did not grant us all equal gifts, and even if she did, nothing says that any one of us can or will use those gifts to the best of our ability.
On the other hand, collectivism is the political system which protects the rights of society, and since society is not an entity, but an abstract perspective on a group of separate individuals, such a system necessarily protects some individuals at the expense of others. Socialism is the economic system that results from collectivist legal codes and it's necessary economic consequence is stagnation at best, total collapse, total control, and total war at worst.
The balance between the two is like balancing food with poison, and as recent history bears testament to, food is not the side that wins when you compromise one with the other.
boy! We are really getting off topic here. We’re also getting a little bit too deep, (maybe even too deep for me=). You articulated a few points, so I hope that I've interpreted them correctly. If not, please correct me if I've ms-interpreted your statements. Sorry, in advanced guys for getting off topic. I hope we don’t end up closing this thread but here goes…
Although it has many meanings and connotations, The word “Socialism” is usually tied to, or implies communism. So if you’re implying that our government is akin to communism, then I’ll have to disagree.
I'm probably interpreting this wrong but do you believe that collective laws governing society/economy are a poison to the well beings of individuals living in that society? Do you believe in every man for himself, with no collective laws, rules or regulation? Are you advocating anarchy?
The balance between Government and Capitalism is like yin and yang, and not poison and food IMHO. The Government needs the profits/revenues and employment generated by businesses to keep itself functioning. In turn, businesses and consumers (individuals) need the protection and the laws of government to enforce rules and regulations so as to protect all parties involved. Let a company get too big, and it will become a monopoly and stifle fair competition and innovation -while also making everything more expensive for the consumer. Rules and regulations by government do not necessarily stifle big Business from being profitable as pundits on the right would want you to believe; but instead, it helps to prevent corporations from hurting consumers and maybe even themselves and our economy-(i.e. Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Lehman brothers, AIG, the real-estate market/mortgage meltdown…the list goes on and on.).
The invisible hand of capitalism, whether you like it or not, is driven partially by greed. And greed, if left unfettered, unregulated and without rules, can corrupt and create more damage then good sometimes. Don’t get me wrong. I like Capitalism. All I’m saying is that some checks and balances would do more good than harm IMO. Just my two cents. Now I hope people didn't just fall asleep reading this.
I personally enjoy the benefits of having roads, streets, lamp posts, highways, stoplights, bridges, public education, public libraries, public transportation so that kids can have bus’s to take them to school, etc…
I don’t think it is a fallacy to believe that there are laws out there that favor big business(or the wealthy). It is the big corporations that lobby and bribe our politicians to help create legislation and laws that benefit them. This is not a fallacy, but a sad and grave reality IMOdevilof76 said:
Agree and disagree. I Agree that we have a mixed system. But a healthy balanced mix system during the last administration? NO. I think a healthy mix of Gov to Business would be 50, 50 or even 40,60 respectively, but I don’t think that was the healthy balanced mix we had that cause the economic meltdown. During the last administration, It was more of an extreme imbalance of maybe 20%gov, 80%business that caused our economic and financial downturn IMO. Just a subjective guesstimate, but I think you catch my drift.devilof76 said:
True, let’s hope that the ones that benefit more, and use their gifts to the best of their ability, don’t ultimately get corrupted by greed and power to do more harm then good. Let’s hope that all the wallstreet ceo’s learned their lesson. Though it’s kind of hard to learn a lesson when you are never punished for what you did-(it seems that these wealthy crooks are protected under our current legal system=)devilof76 said:
devilof76 said:
devilof76 said:
Although it has many meanings and connotations, The word “Socialism” is usually tied to, or implies communism. So if you’re implying that our government is akin to communism, then I’ll have to disagree.
I'm probably interpreting this wrong but do you believe that collective laws governing society/economy are a poison to the well beings of individuals living in that society? Do you believe in every man for himself, with no collective laws, rules or regulation? Are you advocating anarchy?
The balance between Government and Capitalism is like yin and yang, and not poison and food IMHO. The Government needs the profits/revenues and employment generated by businesses to keep itself functioning. In turn, businesses and consumers (individuals) need the protection and the laws of government to enforce rules and regulations so as to protect all parties involved. Let a company get too big, and it will become a monopoly and stifle fair competition and innovation -while also making everything more expensive for the consumer. Rules and regulations by government do not necessarily stifle big Business from being profitable as pundits on the right would want you to believe; but instead, it helps to prevent corporations from hurting consumers and maybe even themselves and our economy-(i.e. Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Lehman brothers, AIG, the real-estate market/mortgage meltdown…the list goes on and on.).
The invisible hand of capitalism, whether you like it or not, is driven partially by greed. And greed, if left unfettered, unregulated and without rules, can corrupt and create more damage then good sometimes. Don’t get me wrong. I like Capitalism. All I’m saying is that some checks and balances would do more good than harm IMO. Just my two cents. Now I hope people didn't just fall asleep reading this.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
I disagree, completely.
But I'm not going to mine your post for everything in it that's not true. I'll just leave it at that.
But I'm not going to mine your post for everything in it that's not true. I'll just leave it at that.
I didn't expect you to agree, and i didn't agree 100% with your post either. hence my response. But it's all good. It's good to hear different sides of the same coin. Not everyone will agree, but it's great that we can express our thoughts and opinions about it. And I think it's good to read other peoples perspectives. To each his own. cheers.
devilof76
Super Freak
Indeed. Just know that the Wall St. crooks were doing business according to laws created by a heavily leftist political establishment going back four decades, and that the overwhelming share of their campaign contributions leading up to the 2008 Presidential elections were to the DNC.
Indeed. Just know that the Wall St. crooks were doing business according to laws created by a heavily leftist political establishment going back four decades, and that the overwhelming share of their campaign contributions leading up to the 2008 Presidential elections were to the DNC.
FYI, I'm neither left, nor right. I'm probably one of the few middle of the road moderate folks left that just wants some sanity back in our political system. All I know is, the last administration was for everything big business and deregulation and look what happened.
Hey, I hate red tape just like the next person. Too many rules and regulations can sometimes create so much traffic that nothing gets done and businesses hands are tied. I understand that. But if you deregulate and eliminate all rules and regulations and go the other extreme, that can bring problems as well. All I'm saying is everything in moderation. Don't have so many rules and regulations in place that nothing gets done, but also don't eliminate all rules and regulations so that corners are cut and we get careless and irresponsible and create more harm than good. Just have the right balance of rules and regulations to protect big business, the individual consumer and our economy. That's all.
I use to be republican until it was high-jacked by the far right nut-jobs. I vote based on character of the candidate rather than party affiliation. Just give me the best candidate that could best lead our country in a positive direction. Whether democrat or republican, both love this country equally, just have their different ways of showing it-to think otherwise is simply unpatriotic.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
work13 said:
I think that's outright horse____. Both parties have proven repeatedly that they don't give a damn about this country.
The last administration was not for any of those things, nor were their actions responsible for the housing meltdown. In 2006 Bush was actually the most vocal opponent of subprime lending, and he was because of the blatantly obvious risk. He was opposed by the Democratic backers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were the primary agents in the collapse of the affordable housing racket. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, touted as the main obstruction to this kind of irresponsibilty was implemented by Bill Clinton, as was the incentive structure that inspired banks to engage in high risk mortgage lending, based on the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which was passed by Jimmy Carter. (The last trillion dollars worth of loans given out by the FM's were subprime, and the climax of that practice was the folding of Bear Strearns and Lehmen Brothers; on top of that, no capitalist worth their salt would ever have bailed out a single one of those companies...)
However, Bush increased domestic spending more than any President in the past three decades (primarily in Medicare). He allowed Sarbanes-Oxley to be passed and his tax cuts were a joke. He conducted his War on Terror more in the tradition of Kennedy and Johnson's Vietnam than Lincoln's execution of the Civil War, and he did it because he was a disciplined 'just war' neo-conservative, a political philosophy based on the teachings of Leo Strauss, a devout Trotskyist. Neo-conservatism is the furthest to the left that conservatism has ever gone.
The left demonizes the right as capitalist because they seek to appeal to the collectivist sympathies of their electorate. Until the emergence of the Tea Party, the right has not had a capitalist bone in its body since Barry Goldwater, and even they barely comprehend what it means to be truly right-wing. The best they can do is idolize Ronald Reagan and he was almost as horrific a spender as Bush. He was certainly just as inclined to appease international terrorists.
Bottom line, economic freedom is what generated the legendary prosperity and cultural beneficence of this country, and the constriction of that freedom is what has destroyed it. From the Great Depression to the recession of the 1970's, and the recession we are due to watch deepen in the next few months. Until that freedom is restored (unconditionally, as the conditions on freedom are what have always allowed the real violations to be gotten away with) this economy--like the economies of the statist countries around the world--will hang on the precipice of the next depression.
The next depression will be the overture to the next world war. A century worth of academics have worked to convince the middle of the road that freedom cannot be tolerated, and they have done it based on the same premises that paved the way for the last world war.
There was no need for WWII, or the Great Depression. The propserity of the 1920's was real, and it was squandered by the ambitions those who wished to control the people who created that wealth. The 'greed' of better men would have fixed the market crash of 1929, but just as in Europe, the 'charity' of would be tyrants would not permit them.
The answer isn't a better political leader. The answer is for political leaders to get the hell out of the way.
What I mean't was people in general who affiliate themselves as either democrat or republican love this country just as much as the next person. I do agree that the majority of politicians in office care more about bickering and re-election than doing what is right for this country.
devilof76
Super Freak
When those politicians stop getting re-elected, I'll start to believe that their contituents are any better. The power lust of leaders is an expression of the beliefs of those who give them that power. Good intentions are worthless if those who hold them don't know what's good.
Hell on Earth is a logical consequence of bad premises given permission to rule.
Hell on Earth is a logical consequence of bad premises given permission to rule.
Shropt
My Little Mod
The biggest problem with our system right now is that the title of politician was supposed to be a part-time position and was never meant to be a career. Until we cut these guys back money and benefit wise we will never get an honest politician.
I'd have to disagree with that. sometimes constituents are fooled by the politicians that they support. Many times politicians promise everything to their loyal supporters only to go back on their promises once they get elected. Also, we don't get a choice of who we can elect, because most of the good honest people that we'd probably want to elect to office, don't have the money or deep pockets to make it that far. Basically it almost boils down to- if you're wealthy and have a lot of money, or are already a member of congress-(whom most of which are rich), you can be president.
- Status
Similar threads
