George Carlin Defines the tea party

By: SayNoToTea , 4:10 PM GMT on April 12, 2012

Share this Blog
0
+

Note 1-
Misanthrope has a good link to racism and the right in my last blog and I thought this part was quite telling;

Dismissing the occasional racist is one way for conservatives to deal with their racism problem. Reconsidering aspects of their ideology that repel African Americans and other minorities and attract allies with toxic views on race would be another. But that won’t happen anytime soon. So expect the occasional purges to continue.


I had to laugh as I read a right wing blog one fellow who has posted some racial pieces in the past fails to realize that even when you praise someone, if that praise is based on their race, religion and stereotype it is still rascist. Why couldn't the lady in question have just been a good entrepeneur is beyond me.

Note 2-

I also had a good laugh reading far right blogs seeing how they posted a newspaper story from a writer who declared that after reflecting on more information he had reversed his earlier conclusion and now felt Travon Martin's killer was innocent. I have no problem with the article no matter if I disagree or not, but what struck me as funny was just days earlier the theme of the blog was that it should be tried in the courts and not in the press. I guess it's ok if the press agreees with your thoughts.

Note 3-

Goodbye Santorum, this picture says it all,




Note 4-
The far right has made a big deal about how the "free market" left alone will fix all economic ills. Regardless that this is not true, please read the following article. The problem that our right wing idiots miss most is we are a world economy and the world has adopted different rules than ours, if we are to play the game we had better adapt our game so that it is suited to theirs.



Free market failure: Isn't it time to consider a different model?By Graeme Maxton

Many news stories this week seemed depressingly familiar.

David Cameron's foolhardy let's-blame-the-Europeans (again) speech in Davos, Christine Lagarde's scaremongering about another 1930s-style crisis and Mitt Romney's desire for the rich to pay less tax than the poor show how much the Western world lacks leadership, new ideas and a moral compass right now.

When they are not trying to blame someone else, make us fearful or enrich themselves, the West's politicians, bankers and economists keep banging the same drum.

They say we should go shopping, pay less tax and print more money to solve our problems.

If we can boost spending in Europe and America by getting the banks to lend again, uncork the hidden desire for consumption in the developing world in places like China and India, and liberalise competition in countries such as Japan, France and Italy, vast new opportunities will be unleashed, they tell us.

The trouble with these ideas is not just that they contain a whiff of self-interest, it is that they are also an attempt to reimpose a model which has failed.

Logically, their suggestions will only make the situation worse - which is exactly what is happening.

Another way?

These politicians and experts are also being intellectually dishonest.

They refuse to consider a different approach, even one that seems to work better.

Many countries have avoided economic hardship in the past few years, not because they were lucky, but because they have a different economic philosophy.

If Chinese companies bid to build power plants or railways in Africa or Eastern Europe, the state or one of its banks will provide the customer with low-cost financing. The government also helps Chinese businesses gain access to valuable resources. ”
End Quote In Asia, where economic growth has been strongest, the state has played a much bigger role than in the US or UK, with big businesses explicitly supported by governments.

China's 150 biggest companies are all government directed, with four of them now among the top ten companies in the world. It has also established many of the world's biggest banks, the second-largest producer of telecoms and internet equipment and the second-largest PC maker.

And it is not just in China. Many of Singapore and Malaysia's biggest and most successful companies are also state directed, while many of the firms that dominate South Korea retain close links to the state, too.

Governments help these companies in a variety of ways. They restrict unnecessary competition to help them build economies of scale. They provide them with finance, give them favoured access to local customers or use legislation to keep foreign rivals at bay.

Because they don't have to generate endlessly rising quarterly profits and dividends, these state-backed companies have been able to reinvest and grow more quickly.

Although Westerners see this approach as unfair, it is not. It is just a different way to compete, and perhaps a better way. It also ensures that skills, jobs and wealth are kept at home, not sucked away overseas.

When Chinese, South Korean or many South East Asian companies venture abroad, though, their governments are beside them too.

If Chinese companies bid to build power plants or railways in Africa or Eastern Europe, the state or one of its banks will provide the customer with low-cost financing. The government also helps Chinese businesses gain access to valuable resources.

Schools, roads and bridges are built by Chinese workers in return for coal, oil and iron ore. That way, China gets the business, the jobs and the resources.

Self-interest

These countries see big international business deals as a way to win contracts and geopolitical influence at the same time. They are not just about making a quick buck - there are wider strategic interests.

Many European countries also take a different approach to economic management, notably Germany, which remains one of the strongest economies in the world.

The German government believes it has a duty to regulate markets when they get out of control, when they create bubbles or widen the gap between rich and poor. German citizens want their markets to serve the needs of society, not a few fat-cats. They prefer harmony to greed, and are willing to accept greater regulation to achieve this.

Economists, politicians and financiers in America, Britain and many other countries have become obsessed with the free-market mantra, with their belief in consumption and minimal regulation, because it served them (sometimes personally) so well for so long.

In the end though, it failed.

Instead of telling us we need more of the same, isn't it time for them to reflect on how their model should be improved?

Graeme Maxton's new book, The End of Progress, how modern economics has failed us was published by Wiley in 2011. He is a Fellow of the Club of Rome.

Note 5-
You know george must have been thinking about the tea party when he spoke these lines :-)



Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 6 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

6. unclemush
5:55 AM GMT on April 17, 2012
Link Sarah Palin’s Deluded Ego Never Ends, Challenges President Obama To A Debate
Member Since: July 7, 2001 Posts: 59 Comments: 13166
4. unclemush
11:31 PM GMT on April 16, 2012
Link New Poll Shows Tea Party Support Declining
Member Since: July 7, 2001 Posts: 59 Comments: 13166
3. originalLT
2:44 AM GMT on April 13, 2012
What makes the "tea Baggers" constitutional scholars? Who are they to judge? The Supreme court can have a hard enough time deciding what is constitutional or not. Those people are scarey.
Member Since: January 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 7503
2. SayNoToTea
9:03 PM GMT on April 12, 2012
Un"stupid"believable

Some local north state candidates rebuff tea party pledge; plea focuses on faith in Constitution
By Ryan Sabalow
Some north state candidates are refusing to sign a Redding tea party group's pledge that says they must resign or agree to publicly disclose their transgressions if the tea party deems them to have violated the state or U.S. constitutions.

A number of candidates, including Shasta County Supervisor Leonard Moty, say they refused to sign the Bostonian Tea Party's pledge because it would make them beholden to the whims of a special-interest group.

Moty said he already signed a pledge to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions when he was first elected, and he doesn't feel comfortable putting himself in a situation where the tea party would have power over him based on their own set of constitutional interpretations.

"I represent all the people — not just one special-interest group," Moty said. "I think this is what this pledge attempts to do, make you beholden to their wishes."

Other candidates had no such qualms. Redding City Councilman Patrick Jones, a candidate for the 3rd District supervisor seat, said he signed it.

"I generally agree with a lot of the principles in the tea party," Jones said. "I read the pledge, and I didn't think it hit any particular language that concerned me a great deal. I think adhering to the Constitution is very important."

Cherrill Clifford, a 4th District supervisor candidate, agreed.

"Just because it's a special-interest group, it doesn't mean it's something evil," said Clifford, who's a regular at the Bostonians' weekly meetings. "It's the content of what I had to sign is what matters to me."

Greg Mann, a Redding jeweler who heads the Bostonians, didn't return two phone messages and an email this week, so it's unclear how many candidates signed or refused to sign the pledge.

One of Mann's emails obtained by the Record Searchlight shows Mann sent it to 15 north state congressional and Shasta County supervisor candidates and one candidate running for state Assembly.

The pledge starts out simply enough. The candidate agrees to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions. The candidate also pledges to show "humility for the honor bestowed upon me as their elected civil servant, and will always strive to act in the best interests of my constituents, my state, my nation and the Constitution of the United States of America."

The second half of the pledge states that should the Bostonian Tea Party or any of the candidate's constituents believe the candidate has "willfully failed" to uphold his or her oath of office they'll make themselves publicly available to whoever filed the complaint within 60 days to address their concerns.

The pledge then states: "Upon examination by the Bostonian Tea Party or other affiliate constituency group, should it be determined that I have willfully violated my 'Oath of Office,' I shall either immediately and publicly apologize for my un-Constitutional behavior and seek to overturn or remedy any adverse actions taken, or I shall immediately remove myself from office to make way for a representative who will be more scrupulous in obeying the Oath of Office, or, if necessary, I hereby agree to allow public disclosure by the aggrieved party(s) of any and all alleged un-Constitutional deeds and thus breech of this contract, in any form or manner of print, media or other public discourse deemed necessary by the Bostonian Tea Party or other affiliate constituent groups, particularly as it coincides with future reelection bids."

Moty said that last bit amounts to public shaming.

"It reminded me of back in the 1600s in Salem when they put you in stocks for public ridicule," he said.

One of Moty's competitors for supervisor, Steve Allen, said he signed the pledge, but only after he made revisions.

Allen signed the top half, but scratched out the rest. He said he later rewrote the pledge removing the part about removing himself from office if the tea party felt he should do so. He agreed to meet with Mann's group to discuss the matter.

"I found them to be responsive to my concerns," Allen said.

Republican congressional candidate Pete Stiglich, who counts as supporters many in the Bostonian group, said he helped the group draft the pledge and he felt it was toned down enough to sign, though he was uncomfortable with its earliest drafts.

Others running against Stiglich refused to sign it.

Jim Reed, a Democrat, said he's refusing to sign any pledges, saying they'll keep him from being able to compromise should he become elected. He took issue with the tea party appointing itself as a constitutional enforcer.
"The tea party is a quasi-governmental agency all of the sudden enforcing certain rules," Reed said.

Gregory Cheadle, a Republican, said he was concerned about who decides whether a candidate violated the pledge.

"Who is going to determine what's constitutional?" said Cheadle, who's studying to be a lawyer. "If I feel something is constitutional and someone else doesn't, who wins?"

He said the pledge amounts to the same "strong-armed" political tactics the tea party condemns mainstream political groups for using. "If I sign something like that, I'm putting myself in a foxhole with dynamite," he said.

Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 80 Comments: 235
1. SayNoToTea
8:49 PM GMT on April 12, 2012
It's a toss up of which Florida has more of, stupid right wing conservatives or mosquitos.

Tea Party congressman: My colleagues are Communists
Rep. Allen West, R-Florida, a Tea Party champion elected in 2010, has set off a storm of controversy by saying that a large number of his colleagues in Congress are Communists.


est was asked by a constituent in Florida: “What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists?”

“That’s a fair question: I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party,” West replied. A moment later, he added: “It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

The accusation seemed straight out of the early 1950s, when Red-baiting Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin claimed to have a list of “members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring” in the U.S. State Department. The “list” started at 205 names, later reduced to 81 names and then 57.

The reaction on Wednesday was swift. Unlike the case of Sen. McCarthy, where fellow Republicans (notably Sen. Margaret Chase Smith of Maine) were quick to denounce extremism, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was left to defend itself.

“When people like Rep. West have no ideals or principles, they rely on personal attacks,” the group’s co-chairs, Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), said in a statement. They said West is “denigrating the millions of Americans” who have elected members of the Progressive Caucus.”

The Caucus currently includes 76 members in the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives.

McDermott, an Episcopalian by religious affiliation and a progressive in his politics, professed to be sad more than mad — sad at the attitude West and other extreme members have brought to the “People’s House.”

“Allen is among the most extreme members,” said McDermott. “The man’s ideas are so fixed that he has never talked to, asked about, or gotten to know what he and other members might have in common.

“There’s no humility whatever. He has all the answers. He knows everything. The biggest threat to our government is people who say, ‘I have all the answers.’ It means we can’t work to solve problems when some people have such extreme answers.”

Questioning of colleagues’ patriotism is unusual. In 2008, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., accused then-Sen. Barack Obama of harboring “anti-American” views.

Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., threw about the “Communist” label before going to jail for taking bribes.

“Calling fellow members of Congress ‘communists’ is reminiscent of the days when Joe McCarthy divided Americans with name-calling and modern-day witch hunts that don’t advance policies to benefit people’s lives,” Grijalva and Ellison said in their statement.

West’s aides were not retreating. “He stands by his words,” campaign manager Tim Edson told Politico.

Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 80 Comments: 235

Viewing: 6 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About SayNoToTea

The tea party is is made up of puppets being run by an elite group to serve their needs and not the needs of the people

SayNoToTea's Recent Photos

veteran