ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ok I just found this entry in Biggovernment and the whole Direct Democracy is even more central to the OWS theme than I thought.

biggovernment.com...

I'll have to watch those when I get home - not enough bandwidth here. The very concept of "collective liberty" is the most bizarre oxymoron I've ever heard, and I just have to see how in the devil they can wiggle around that!

Ever heard the adage, ""The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members?" Basically put, if someone in my society is dying of preventable illnesses, if someone is going hungry when food is abundant, when someone is in poverty, I am no freer than they are.

It's an "ethics" thing, one that the simplistic libertarian ethos of "I've got mine, go screw yourself" isn't well-equipped to handle.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

I am not for OWS, because they don't stand for, believe in nor share my views on solutions.
The common theme for OWS is for Govt to step in and create more rules.
No thanks.
Got enough rules right now, that aren't enforced or cherry picked because those in Govt control want votes.

Show me Occupy White House, then I may look into supporting.
Until then, enjoy the cold of winter.

There's a certain irony when you complain about "government stepping in," and in the same breath you complain about government not "stepping in."

Those rules you mentioned? We want them enforced. We want a return to a government that responds to the electorate, rather than the people with biggest donation funds. Hell, in some ways you could call us "conservatie leftists" THing is we're looking for a return to a certain point in our system, where the concern of government was the society being governed, rather than turning a profit.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

It's an "ethics" thing, one that the simplistic libertarian ethos of "I've got mine, go screw yourself" isn't well-equipped to handle.

If ethics is not founded in the understanding that the goal is to accomplish the greatest good to the greatest amount, then ethics has no meaning all, or worse, its meaning is as every bit as entropic as the closed system you are undeniably advocating.

It is way beyond simplistic to point to a defenseless soul in need of medical attention, and smugly declare that because you can point to them you are ethical. Sure, you want to think you do more, but your idea of more is to discard basic and fundamental human rights in order to create a system (closed system) that will plunder others to pay for this poor defenseless soul in need of medical attention. Advocating plunder as a method by which to incompetently help others is not just simplistic, it is childish.

Ethics means far more than puffing out your chest and dismissing the ideas of others you don't agree with. Ethics is heroic, and plundering others is no where near heroic. You want to be ethical? Then be ethical, but don't tell us that your advocacy of plunder is ethics, until you can prove that this plunder is actually and truly accomplishing the greatest good to the greatest amount. So far, it appears that your closed system politics only helps a few and pisses all over the rest.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sounds like you put the word plunder in her mouth and ran away with it. Totally ignoring her point about laws being paid for.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If ethics is not founded in the understanding that the goal is to accomplish the greatest good to the greatest amount, then ethics has no meaning all, or worse, its meaning is as every bit as entropic as the closed system you are undeniably advocating.

Please explain, what "closed system" am I "undeniably advocating?"

It is way beyond simplistic to point to a defenseless soul in need of medical attention, and smugly declare that because you can point to them you are ethical. Sure, you want to think you do more, but your idea of more is to discard basic and fundamental human rights in order to create a system (closed system) that will plunder others to pay for this poor defenseless soul in need of medical attention. Advocating plunder as a method by which to incompetently help others is not just simplistic, it is childish.

I'm sorry, but you really don't have a "basic and fundamental human right" to condemn someone to suffering death because you don't feel like being charitable. What you call "plunder" is actually taxation, and your terminology goes a great way towards demonstrating that your worldview is accoded solely to your own selfishness - taxes are the price of civilization. If you want to live in a world where your right to wealth triumphs over someone else's right to life, then you are an advocate of simple barbarism.

Ethics means far more than puffing out your chest and dismissing the ideas of others you don't agree with. Ethics is heroic, and plundering others is no where near heroic. You want to be ethical? Then be ethical, but don't tell us that your advocacy of plunder is ethics, until you can prove that this plunder is actually and truly accomplishing the greatest good to the greatest amount. So far, it appears that your closed system politics only helps a few and pisses all over the rest.

Here's a proof. For thirty years, we've been operating this country on a system similar to what you seem to be advocating - taxes ("plunder") have been slashed time and tome again. With them have come major cuts to every social program we have in this nation, essentualy making hte position of the poor even more fragile, and making the ranks of the indigent grow. Under these policies, the middle class has been shrinking, growing downward, while hte top percentile, which has not grown by person, has exploded financially.

Thirty years of your philosophy in place. Do you feel freer?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

but your idea of more is to discard basic and fundamental human rights

I failed to notice where this is advocated and wish you would explain what basic human rights are discarded by the OP or OWS?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Please explain, what "closed system" am I "undeniably advocating?"

You are certainly not advocating a free and unregulated market, and any market outside of that paradigm is a closed system.

I'm sorry, but you really don't have a "basic and fundamental human right" to condemn someone to suffering death because you don't feel like being charitable.

Pointing to someone suffering death is not charitable, and particularly when you are using that person's suffering to push your own agenda. Such pointing is exploitative of their death and suffering, and stealing from others simply because you cannot be bothered to use your own personal wealth to be charitable to the person suffering death is so far removed from charity it is pathetic. Worse, pointing to someone suffering from death and declaring that I have condemned them to that death because I had the wherewithal to call a spade a spade and speak to your unabashedly ignorant advocacy of income taxation in perpetuity is shameful.

What you call "plunder" is actually taxation, and your terminology goes a great way towards demonstrating that your worldview is accoded solely to your own selfishness - taxes are the price of civilization.

When government imposes excises, imposts, and tariff's, or a direct tax on a person, or their property, in order to raise revenue to do the job government was mandated to do, that is taxation. Using a "tax" to redistribute wealth is plunder.

If you want to live in a world where your right to wealth triumphs over someone else's right to life, then you are an advocate of simple barbarism.

I want to live in a world where every person is free and can rely on the fact that the rest of humanity holds profound respect for their unalienable rights. I want to live in a world where everyone can do anything they please as long as it causes no harm, unless defense becomes necessary, but if everyone is profoundly respecting the rights of everyone else, defense would not be necessary, would it? I will be goddamned if I am going to have some smug poser tell me that my advocacy for freedom, and universal unalienable rights for all, somehow and mysteriously translates into a denial and disparagement of other peoples rights. This sort of double speak can only confound and confuse the all ready confouded and confused, but only comes off as bad mystical incantations to the rational minded.

Here's a proof. For thirty years, we've been operating this country on a system similar to what you seem to be advocating - taxes ("plunder") have been slashed time and tome again.

This is a lie. What you have described doesn't even come close to what I am advocating. What I am advocating is an end to this oh-so odious income tax all together, and I am certainly not advocating any tax system to replace the revenue this oh-so odious income tax has raised for a grossly expanded and out of control government. I am advocating self government, which would mean that if you see some soul suffering death, then help them Walking Fox! Don't you dare point to them and start berating everyone else because you cannot be bothered to get your hands dirty and help the poor soul.

Further, I ask for proof, and you pretend that by pointing to something that is not what you want this is somehow proof that what you want will work. You have pointed to a closed system, which only underscores my point of how grossly incompetent government is in this so called "charitable" work you claim they do. You haven't offered any proof, but like the mystic does, you've used misdirection hoping no one notices you mediocre card trick.

You lie and claim my philosophy has been in place for thirty years, but my philosophy has never even been taken seriously by any other than just a few, so if it is not my philosophy that has fueled this thirty year period you point to, then whose is it? It is nothing more than a stripped down version of your own philosophy, and you hope to convince people that building government even bigger will some how make their competent incompetency less competent thereby giving us competent government. Either you are naive, or nefarious.

Governments are not institutions of charity, they are governments. Your insistence on declaring all who oppose government as charity as being uncharitable is likely due to your own lack of charity. Consider that before foolishly assuming that your praise of plunder equates to ethics.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

but your idea of more is to discard basic and fundamental human rights

I failed to notice where this is advocated and wish you would explain what basic human rights are discarded by the OP or OWS?

The United States is overrun with out of control administrative agencies poking their noses in every aspect of business, claiming authority they do not have. Licensing schemes are imposed upon people who have the basic and fundamental right to earn a living. A shoemaker needs no permission from the state to make shoes, and a book seller needs no permission from the state to sell books, but try to open up a business without a license and watch how difficult government will make your life.

These licensing schemes, and anyone who has all ready opened a business all ready knows, will not be granted to those who acquiesce until first that person obtains a federal tax ID number. Such collusion between local and federal government is not only unlawful, under our Constitutional governments it is illegal, but it is done anyway. So, here's the deal, if you want to go into business, everyone and their brothers and sisters will tell you how you need to go to city hall and get a license. If you foolishly agree to this, city hall will tell you to come back after you've obtained a federal tax ID number.

This closed system has become so bad that wholesalers will not even consider selling to an unlicensed business who has no federal tax ID number. Why? What is going on with all of this that everyone who actually wants to go into business must first agree to join an entropic system? Walking Fox is not only advocating this system, that member is insisting that system isn't oppressive enough!

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Sounds like you put the word plunder in her mouth and ran away with it. Totally ignoring her point about laws being paid for.

Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. Legislation used to plunder is not law, and one of the greatest threats to freedom is the stupid and pointless proclivity of so many to equate legislation with law. You are nowhere near a part of the solution and every bit a part of the problem as long as you keep insisting that law is some sort of capricious and arbitrary creation of humanity.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

but your idea of more is to discard basic and fundamental human rights

I failed to notice where this is advocated and wish you would explain what basic human rights are discarded by the OP or OWS?

The United States is overrun with out of control administrative agencies poking their noses in every aspect of business, claiming authority they do not have. Licensing schemes are imposed upon people who have the basic and fundamental right to earn a living. A shoemaker needs no permission from the state to make shoes, and a book seller needs no permission from the state to sell books, but try to open up a business without a license and watch how difficult government will make your life.

These licensing schemes, and anyone who has all ready opened a business all ready knows, will not be granted to those who acquiesce until first that person obtains a federal tax ID number. Such collusion between local and federal government is not only unlawful, under our Constitutional governments it is illegal, but it is done anyway. So, here's the deal, if you want to go into business, everyone and their brothers and sisters will tell you how you need to go to city hall and get a license. If you foolishly agree to this, city hall will tell you to come back after you've obtained a federal tax ID number.

This closed system has become so bad that wholesalers will not even consider selling to an unlicensed business who has no federal tax ID number. Why? What is going on with all of this that everyone who actually wants to go into business must first agree to join an entropic system? Walking Fox is not only advocating this system, that member is insisting that system isn't oppressive enough!

I really would expect to find you over on TSA threads railing against the Patriot Act (which has done more to eliminate or undermine the notion of individual freedoms than any other legislation to date) but you generally participate in threads which feature heavily in economic themes advocating the reining in the dominance of corporative rights over individual rights. I don't understand the disconnect.

Licensing "schemes" also provide a framework for accountability, as well as for taxation purposes. In an ideal world we would all relish the opportunity to be held accountable for our dealings with others, but until such time, mechanisms to mitigate an unwillingness to take responsibility are the best we have.

The OWS movement stands in opposition to a government that by all appearances has become over run by accountability to corporations (by way of their donations and lobbying contributions) at the expense of the citizenry.

To allow these conflicts of interest continue can only result in a continuation of the same. Upending this aspect of the status quo is a logical solution, and means by which concerns of the individual will be thoroughly considered and addressed.

The significant redistribution of wealth upward to the top 1% over the past 30 years needs to be addressed. In this time we have seen the dissolution of trade unions and flaunting of usury laws by banks set up with out-of-state work arounds that allow banks to charge exorbitant interest rates well in excess of what state laws permit, most often to those in need of credit the most with the least likely ability to afford those charges. In many respects ethics (and legal accountability) have been given the boot in the name of the almighty dollar. And while the fed interest rate is the lowest that has been in my (reasonably long) lifetime, the rates being charged are way out of synch for this reality. An unrealistic expectation of profit is pervasive. What profits are to be had are distributed among the top few officers of companies rather than being spread generously among all of the workers.

A law has not been penned to prevent employers from advertising or practicing that a prerequisite for employment in their company is an existing job! Unbelievable. Obviously it would require a law because the practice is rampant and unchecked!

There are plenty of issues that OWS is addressing, that desperately need resolution.

reply to post by elfie

I really would expect to find you over on TSA threads railing against the Patriot Act (which has done more to eliminate or undermine the notion of individual freedoms than any other legislation to date) but you generally participate in threads which feature heavily in economic themes advocating the reining in the dominance of corporative rights over individual rights. I don't understand the disconnect.

The disconnect is yours, not mine. First of all, Congress has been trampling all over individual rights long before the so called "Patriot Act". The so called "war on drugs" has done plenty of damage to individual rights. However, if I am not participating in TSA threads as often as you think I should, let me say this, both sides of the political spectrum seem to have a clear picture of all that is wrong with the Patriot Act, and it is rare that I see any member in this site actually defend that odious piece of legislation.

Conversely, day after day I read vicious attacks on capitalism, all the while those attacking capitalism are pointing to symptoms brought on by corporatism, or by some other closed system of heavy regulation and dubious licensing schemes. More importantly, I have come to believe that our loss of freedom happened not even by tacit approval, but by gee whiz by gosh heck ya agreement, and I mean contractual agreement. We have gone into contractual agreement to surrender our rights in order to have privileges, and this baby ain't freedom.

I go where I am needed...or at least I try to do this as best I can. This is not any disconnect on my part, it is the reality of time and life. My principles remain the same, regardless of where I post. If I am at some point guilty of being hypocritical, while I may not be quick enough by your sensibilities to acknowledge my hypocrisy, it would not be fair to say I am too slow in doing so. Sometimes I am remarkably quick to do so and even willing to own my idiocy, lock, stock, and barrel, and I do so strategically. What I mean by that is that I know how damned annoying I can be. I know how easily I embrace hyperbolic rants and favor them too much over reticent, sure footed responses. I know how smug I can come across, and I am fully aware of this when I am calling other members smug. That itself is fairly called hypocritical. The thing is though, I am human. Not stupid, not unreasonable, not unwilling to be wrong, and precisely because I am human, it is assured I will, at various times, be wrong.

Yet, in this context, if I am wrong for spending too much time in threads you think I really don't belong in, while not spending near enough time in threads you think I should be posting in, I am not seeing it at this point. I am unabashedly me, and while I do all I can to be reasonable, which means acknowledging when I am wrong, me? Well, me personally, I am of the mind that in order to be wrong, I have to actually be wrong. It seems right as rain to be in this thread now, and always seems right to make the effort to defend capitalism, and to look for effective ways to reign in corporatism, and because I so believe that it has been our foolish willingness to make contracts with government agencies to surrender our unalienable rights in order to have government granted privileges, I feel that my genuine passion for freedom and universal unalienable rights is best facilitated in the threads you declare represent a disconnect on my part.

Licensing "schemes" also provide a framework for accountability, as well as for taxation purposes. In an ideal world we would all relish the opportunity to be held accountable for our dealings with others, but until such time, mechanisms to mitigate an unwillingness to take responsibility are the best we have.

There are many well kept secrets in today's society, but one of those best kept secrets is that the third leading cause of death is caused by iatrogenocide. Doctors kill more people in the United States than any other causes of death outside of cancer and heart disease. Doctors are licensed. The accounting firm Arthur Anderson was the licensed accounting firm that cooked the books for Enron. Far more than half of the automobile accidents caused in this nation were caused by licensed drivers.

I know, I know, you said accountability, but it was not any licensing scheme that made Arthur Anderson accountable for their crimes, and if licensing schemes are so good at providing accountability then why are doctors the third leading cause of death?

To few characters, to much to say, but suffice it to say, in this post, that I am avidly against corporatism, I am avidly against throwing out individual rights as a solution to throw away rights granted a legal fiction.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


May I ask what measures you would find appropriate (that would have a realistic chance of success) if furthering an objective of accountability (both corporate & governmental) would be on the table? I'm really interested in seeing your take--to me, your insights are always quite philosophical. And also, what steps would you suggest to effect worthwhile and positive change?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You have to forgive me as I am an idiot, but I don't get your solution to the problem of this poor dying person. Charity has proven itself inadequate as we have starving people all over this planet.

The problem with your argument to me is that it depends on humans being "good" when the world is replete with examples of their maliciousness.

I take it as starving, dying people are simply a cost to bear. It has been the general condition of Man since his inception. I am naturally pessimistic about Humanity though and have yet to see many examples of Man being able to "regulate" himself.

Libertarians talk a big game, but I wish they'd just admit what is really going to happen-The weak will die and that will be the end of it. Let' not lie to each other about it. The weak die now and it's not a free market.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You do understand that protests that aren't Koch Brothers photo-ops tend to bring together a lot of varied people who might, on occasion, miss the tracks?

To be honest, I'm still learning who these Koch brothers cats are, so I can't really make an informed response to that yet other than to say that they seem to be fairly obscure bit players on the world stage. The way people were talking about them during the Union fights, I thought they must be ten foot tall monsters completely covered with hair, and am only now finding that not to be the case. It's really sad that I have to get that vindicating info from sources such as the HuffPo.

Well, you'd specified the October Revolution. The entire Russian revolution took a bit longer

Plus, well, the Russians were shooting, and were basing everything off a book written fifty years prior.

I don't think I did specify the October Revolution, but it's possible I suppose. I usually think more in terms of a "Russian Revolution" as an overall thing, as I termed it in this post. Even so, 13 days is STILL some kind of record for a shooting war to take over a country the size of Russia. If you've ever mobilized men into combat, you'll know that 13 days is a pretty good time span to plan and execute a single raid, much less an entire war. Writing an amendment that amounts to the size of a paragraph should still be child's play in comparison.

"They've been planning it for a long time!" doesn't really mesh well with "There's no focus!" you know.

That would depend entirely on what the true objective is. As a matter of fact, that is what initially got my attention and caused me to search for any hidden agendas. It is beyond a doubt true on both counts, and so there must be a reason for that.

Since local politics are smaller, they tend to be easier to corrupt. Since their impact on the people is more immediate, that corruption tends to cause more damage. Take for instance, Scott Walker. Ron Johnson and Herb Kohl might be bought off in the senate, but it's the governor being bought off that's doing damage. This factor is even more damaging in municipalities and states where judges are elected. So I really do think "local" public election funds are necessary as well

The political reach of the Mayor of LA, for example, doesn't even approach affecting me, so there's no reason I should have a say in LA politics. Let each locality decide for themselves what is best for them vis-a-vis their local politicians. If they want a local election fund, I have no quarrel with that, and if they want a different system, I have no quarrel with that, either.

Heck, it's no skin off my nose if LA, or Denver, or Boston, or any of hundreds of places go full-on communist tomorrow at 8:00 am, complete with a brand new bright red city flag. Not my city, so no reason I should have a say in it. That would be up to the local citizens to decide upon. If I don't like it, I don't have to travel there.

The one thing all Americans have in common politically is the federal Government. that's why I concentrated more on the Federal than the state or local. That's the one governmental entity ALL Americans should have a say in.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Ever heard the adage, ""The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members?" Basically put, if someone in my society is dying of preventable illnesses, if someone is going hungry when food is abundant, when someone is in poverty, I am no freer than they are.

It's an "ethics" thing, one that the simplistic libertarian ethos of "I've got mine, go screw yourself" isn't well-equipped to handle.

I can only assume that was directed at the oxymoron of "collective liberty" that I brought up. We obviously must have different notions of what constitutes "liberty".

To my way of thinking, if you must be constrained by your government or society to perform the simple act of helping another, then you have neither freedom nor ethics. It seems to me that if an individual doesn't have that quality inherent within himself, then abstracts such as "collectives" or "liberty" are the least of his worries - he needs to see about getting a soul.

So you really think that a government should be allowed to remove an individuals liberty of action in order to force them to have a soul by legislative fiat? How is that "liberty for all"? Or is it that you think some of the animals on the farm are just more equal than others, and so deserving of more "liberty" via legislative fiat than the rest?

Do you really need governmental interference to install ethics within your self?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

I'm sorry, but you really don't have a "basic and fundamental human right" to condemn someone to suffering death because you don't feel like being charitable.

The MOST basic and fundamental of human rights is to make decisions for one's self. When you force a man to be charitable, you take away his own ethics, indeed even his ability to BE ethical. He no longer has an ability to CHOOSE to help.

"Forced ethics" are not ethics at all.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by FastJetPilot

 

The FBI does in fact monitor fb. I've read stories about teenagers who posted something on fb and the FBI showed up at their school the next day and arrested them. They are primarily looking for instances of cybercrime and worrisome posts threatening POTUS. Cybercrime has in fact become the new Mafia, highly organized.

They are looking for decent to suppress.

It's neo-COINTELPRO.

It's "1984."

The FBI has become the bad guys once again.

Yes, I get the 1984 thing, truly I do. I really don't think the FBI is much into that kind of COINTELPRO stuff. Like I said, I think their focus is mainly on pursuing criminal stuff in general. The level of cybercrime related to advanced phishing and code designed to capture people's personal info is plenty for them to worry about.
Even spy software uses key words as flags before anyone examines content.

Are you familiar with all the parts of their charter? It's much more broad than the days of the original COINTELPRO. mit.edu...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I hate to say this but people in the US have it too good right now and until we have a majority of our population who either realize the truth or live way below the Status Quo we will never see any changes for the better! It's unfortunate that many of us are dumbed down through chemicals illegal or otherwise and so we may never see any actual revolution. though I would love to see some real changes in the media and federal reserve because the control of disinformation and the manipulation of our monies are the most important factors facing us right now but we hardly hear anything about these issues and this is not by chance, this is by design! Some day America may realize the truth but it wont be through some uncharacterized protest without any definition or leadership like OWS! Sometimes the reigns of change must be grasped by the rightous even if the risk is great and the Task huge! I'm sure the colonialist of the revolutionary war knew these things and Though I think the average American wants change, they want this without much struggle, research, sacrifice or any personal risks and think that they can just vote change into existance! IMO this will never happen for we have had well over 200 years to see this in action but we still don't get it! Every time there has been change it has always come at a price and always through struggle! We have all seen freedoms lost once we decide to settle, when our struggle has ceased from reality and desseminated into fantasy bloodsports, soap opera(TV) and virtural games! I am tired of telling the same message to those without ears to hear, eyes to see or the understanding to comprehend and so if this is what we choose then so be it! We will enslave each generation we spawn to one harder then our ancestors had, instead of taking control over the fear and loathing that's been perpetuated upon our shoulders by control freaks!
May God have mercy on our souls

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
I think there are numerous reasons why OWS doesn't sit well with some of ATS, but why it appears that all of ATS is anti-OWS.



2) Even those like myself who agree with OWS are against many of the things I see regarding OWS. Its disorganization, its open door anyone-can-come-and-bitch policy resulting in everyone from the homeless and druggies hanging out to the tea party to communists and everything in between. In a country with as much free time and technology as America, its surprising that OWS appears to have been created without any game plan in mind, without any specific agenda except (look at us, we're mad!). I mean really how can a movement like that work? Blacks had a civil rights movement, the message was clear. Arab spring movements have had a single message (leave the country or die, we want a different government). The gay rights movement is clear and focused- the right to marriage. OWS wants anything and everything, and many things which are unrealistic like "going back to the gold standard". Its a farce and a mess.

.

it is an open door for everyone. homeless, druggies, tea party, common man, educated, non-educated, immigrant, native born, the movement represents "us". it is truly a remarkable sight. some people are there just for a hot meal. some are there to voice themselves. some are there out of curiosity. the movement is "us". it is a photograph of our nation. if our society fell apart today...right now....we'd all be there. marching in the streets. some folks are ahead of the curve. they are experiencing joblessness. they are experiencing lack of medical insurance. and i support their right to voice their concerns.


-subfab

Is this another "How come you don't support the OWS!!!" pouting thread? I used to support the OWS, the actions of the OWS and those behind it have convinced me to drop my support.

For instance



I don't care for the Tea party but honestly this is unacceptable.