"the Internet never forgets..."
PDF version here.
Current News and Events with Commentary
Labels: No Main Topic
OK. So what was your other point about Tea Party misconceptions?
My other point was that [Tea Partyers are] not crazy. People want to say that they’re crazy, and they’re really not. They want to maintain their social position, their social prestige; and as Frederick Douglass once said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.” So it’s rational to want to hold onto your position; it’s completely rational. It’s about the means through which [Tea Partyers] do that — that’s what the problem is.
One could say, “Maybe they need to be more educated!” But that’s another fallacy as it pertains to the Tea Party: People think they’re dumb. They’re not dumb. Twenty-six percent of all strong Tea Party identifiers have at least a bachelor’s degree. People think they’re poor, or that they’re working-class. No, they’re not. Twenty percent of all Tea Party households have at least a $100,000 of income. So they’re not dumb, and they’re not working-class or poor — and this has been the case with Birchers, this was the case with the 1920s Ku Klux Klan, this was the case with the Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s. Same demographic group, every time.
Another problem is just the double-talk that they use. They claim they’re about small government; they’re really not. They claim that they don’t like Barack Obama cause he’s a progressive; have they really looked at his legislative record? He governs as a centrist, regardless of what they believe his beliefs to be. On that, if you look at what happened on George Bush’s watch — I mean, let’s be for real: the deficit on George Bush’s … expanded 104 percent … If you look at Clinton’s tenure, it only expanded about 14 percent. If you look at the national debt, how much that expanded on George
Bush’s watch; if you look at the extent to which discretionary spending in George Bush’s first term expanded — I think it expanded by like 48-49 percent. I mean, come on! We didn’t see any Tea Partyers out there at the time. We saw nothing when George Bush was doing all this stuff. George W. Bush got TARP passed. We saw nothing. Now we get Obama in, and now the world is going to shit …
“If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”
"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have."
A little-known Oklahoma state house primary candidate is getting some national attention this week, after a local magazine found Facebook comments he made last year that appear to endorse killing homosexuals—via stoning, specifically.
Republican Scott Esk made the comments on another user’s link to a BBC article which quotes Pope Francis last July telling reporters “if a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Esk responds by quoting Bible verses from the book of Romans and Leviticus which some Christians interpret to condemn homosexual behavior. Adam Bates, the Facebook user who posted the original link, replied that only God has final judgment over the sins of man.
Esk was not having it.“Adam asked about the fitness to judge others,” he wrote. “That right was given to us in verses like Lev 20:13. Men were commanded to put guilty parties to death who were guilty of certain acts, like homosexuality...if men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities.”“So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?” Bates replies.“I think we would be totally right to do it,” Esk replies. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”