The Tea Party...Why are they so Dangerous?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Well, you know what they say about great minds, haha

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Enjoy your fantasies.

That's not my reality.

Some things are worth the bother and some aren't.

BO XIAN
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Enjoy your fantasies.

That's not my reality.

Some things are worth the bother and some aren't.

I'm still not seeing any cites. Or evidence. Interesting.

whyamIhere
I am not a Tea Party member. I am just asking what is so wrong with them?

I see a group of American's exercising their Right to Assemble.

I see a group that has systematically been denied Rights others enjoy.

Before starting this thread I looked at the Tea Party's Platform.

I am posting a link to their Platform website. Name something you disagree with.

I am not looking for a fight. The Tea Party just seems like regular people who had enough.

Tell me why they are dangerous. They seem to be sticking to their principles.

Please read the one page platform before replying.

Tea Party Platform

Thanks...

Systematically denied rights? I'm sure that's not hyperbole in any way.
Which rights are they being denied and please explain the step-by-step procedure in which makes this denial "systematic"

reply to post by AlienScience


WOW. The people are stupid and need to be governed. That is so unbelievably elitist and not to put too fine a term on it, SNOTTY, that I just had to sit back a moment and digest it for a minute.

I sincerely hope your ivory tower comes crashing down soon. When it does, hopefully for your own personal safety you will stay away from where "stupid working people who need the iron fist of the state to keep them in line" like myself live. Some of us have actually shed blood for this country and we value it.

Pejeu


Sounds like you're a shill for the 1% banksters and financiers.

Been against them fiercely for 45+ years. Have I been stuttering? Evidently you haven't read many of my posts.

The 1% banksters and financiers ARE the evil globalists.

They make money out of nothing and gift it to each other, among themselves.

They are the money changers mentioned in the Bible.

A massive redistribution of wealth (spreading it, as it were) is in order, worldwide.

ON that, we can agree.

Keep your Marzulli et al. fairy tales to yourself and out of discussions about the economy and politics.

Don't know where that off the wall comment came from but L.A. Marzulli is a quality bloke doing quality research and good presentations.

NavyDoc
NO, the liar here is you.

Banks take money. They loan it out at interest. People pay the money back with the interest. A portion of that interest earned from the loan is paid to the depositor as his interest. Very much like buying stock.

Read some history. Without the advent of banking systems, such as in Florence, the flourishing trade that helped the renaissance would not have happened.

Like the guys you want to emulate, the Nazis, you are just trying to find a scapegoat to justify your totalitarian dreams and you say the exact same stuff that one can find in Mein Kampf...almost word for word.

You are correct that the Fed "creates money" and you are also correct that a nation having a central bank tied to the government is a dangerous thing, but you are incorrect that a bank or a bank is intrinsically evil or fraudulent. Without banking systems, we could not have developed international trade back at the end of the dark ages and thus would have had a much more difficult time coming out of them

You are the liar.

You can have payment intermediation and money and other valuables' warehousing/safekeeping.

That is not banking.

It is only banking when the clearing house (that's the name for a payment intermediation provider) and/or warehouse starts lending against its customers money or valuables, without their knowledge or permission.

By not allowing financial warehouses and payment intermediation providers to also lend you ban banking.

Banking is legal lending at interest of counterfeit money.

All banking is this, not just central banking.

beegoodbees
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you are both wrong and right. Banks are quite useful when they are dealing with real money. The problem we have with our system is that we don't have any real money. It is just paper and computerized digits. When all you need to be rich is a printing press the floodgates of corruption are opened.

Thanks alot Nixon

You think you had "real" (whatever that means) money before Nixon?



You are even more clueless than these other guys.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


There's a lot on ATS.

There's more on the net.

In my experience, those of your attitude and perspective are unmoved regardless of how high even peer reviewed professional journal cites one provides.

So why bother.

It's silly and futile.

MrPlow

whyamIhere
I am not a Tea Party member. I am just asking what is so wrong with them?

I see a group of American's exercising their Right to Assemble.

I see a group that has systematically been denied Rights others enjoy.

Before starting this thread I looked at the Tea Party's Platform.

I am posting a link to their Platform website. Name something you disagree with.

I am not looking for a fight. The Tea Party just seems like regular people who had enough.

Tell me why they are dangerous. They seem to be sticking to their principles.

Please read the one page platform before replying.

Tea Party Platform

Thanks...

Systematically denied rights? I'm sure that's not hyperbole in any way.

Which rights are they being denied and please explain the step-by-step procedure in which makes this denial "systematic"

edit on 22-10-2013 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)

One of many!

www.washingtontimes.com...

This Complaint, in which we represent 41 organizations in 22 states, presents perhaps the most complete story yet of the IRS conservative targeting scandal.

and it has Obama's fingerprints all over it.

media.aclj.org...

Instead, we detail a long-running assault on the Tea Party, beginning shortly after its emergence in 2009, that is empowered, encouraged, and orchestrated not only by senior IRS officials in Washington, but also through outright targeting by the White House, Congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media.

The IRS was focusing on the tea party just as ordered by Obama

www.foxnews.com...

Bearack

MrPlow

whyamIhere
I am not a Tea Party member. I am just asking what is so wrong with them?

I see a group of American's exercising their Right to Assemble.

I see a group that has systematically been denied Rights others enjoy.

Before starting this thread I looked at the Tea Party's Platform.

I am posting a link to their Platform website. Name something you disagree with.

I am not looking for a fight. The Tea Party just seems like regular people who had enough.

Tell me why they are dangerous. They seem to be sticking to their principles.

Please read the one page platform before replying.

Tea Party Platform

Thanks...

Systematically denied rights? I'm sure that's not hyperbole in any way.

Which rights are they being denied and please explain the step-by-step procedure in which makes this denial "systematic"

edit on 22-10-2013 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)

One of many!

www.washingtontimes.com...

I can agree on that one. But, I also remember when OWS was being criticized by tea partiers for being dead beats and liberals looking for a handout. Dirty hippies etc etc...and told to go get a job and that they have no right to protest on private property.

This one incident does not mean a systematic denial of rights, however.

MrPlow

Bearack

MrPlow

whyamIhere
I am not a Tea Party member. I am just asking what is so wrong with them?

I see a group of American's exercising their Right to Assemble.

I see a group that has systematically been denied Rights others enjoy.

Before starting this thread I looked at the Tea Party's Platform.

I am posting a link to their Platform website. Name something you disagree with.

I am not looking for a fight. The Tea Party just seems like regular people who had enough.

Tell me why they are dangerous. They seem to be sticking to their principles.

Please read the one page platform before replying.

Tea Party Platform

Thanks...

Systematically denied rights? I'm sure that's not hyperbole in any way.

Which rights are they being denied and please explain the step-by-step procedure in which makes this denial "systematic"

edit on 22-10-2013 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)

One of many!

www.washingtontimes.com...

I can agree on that one. But, I also remember when OWS was being criticized by tea partiers for being dead beats and liberals looking for a handout. Dirty hippies etc etc...and told to go get a job and that they have no right to protest on private property.

This one incident does not mean a systematic denial of rights, however.

You allowed to be offended but I assure you that the Tea Party would fight tooth and nail to keep their right to protest and all the constitutional liberties for that matter!

So one denial of rights is okay? Anytime a right is removed it should be protested to the fullest extent! And trust me when I say there is been HUNDREDS of these very same examples of Tea Party members being denied certain rights others are enjoying today.

reply to post by MrPlow


No one has the right to protest on private property, as private property belongs to the individual and not the public. No one has the right to protest and riot to destroy the private property of the individual.

Tell me, in what world do you live in that it is ok to destroy an individual's property? If the OWS was advocating taking private property and making it collective to all the people, then you have entered into a Communist society where no one has the right to any property any more and all is distributed according to how the powers see fit for it to be distributed.

If the OWS was advocating the collection of all wealth and distributing it among everyone, then that is Communism. Imagine this, someone thinks you have a better computer than they do, but they don't or can't get one so they go to your house and protest about you having a better computer and demand that you share it equally with them. So how many people are you going to allow to come into your home and use your computer and internet? Would you allow that? Would you put limits on just who can use it or not, and would you tell them how many minutes they can use it?

There are only so many resources out there, once a resource is gone, it's gone. But you have to take all the ideologies and make it practical, how would it affect you? You have private property, so should your private property be protested over and destroyed when you don't want them to have access to your private property?

Pejeu

beegoodbees
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you are both wrong and right. Banks are quite useful when they are dealing with real money. The problem we have with our system is that we don't have any real money. It is just paper and computerized digits. When all you need to be rich is a printing press the floodgates of corruption are opened.

Thanks alot Nixon

You think you had "real" (whatever that means) money before Nixon?

You are even more clueless than these other guys.

edit on 2013/10/22 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

That's the last time I throw you a bone. Just google gold standard, follow the links to learn all about how this stuff really works and stop harassing people who disagree with you for good reason.

Bearack

MrPlow

Bearack

MrPlow

whyamIhere
I am not a Tea Party member. I am just asking what is so wrong with them?

I see a group of American's exercising their Right to Assemble.

I see a group that has systematically been denied Rights others enjoy.

Before starting this thread I looked at the Tea Party's Platform.

I am posting a link to their Platform website. Name something you disagree with.

I am not looking for a fight. The Tea Party just seems like regular people who had enough.

Tell me why they are dangerous. They seem to be sticking to their principles.

Please read the one page platform before replying.

Tea Party Platform

Thanks...

Systematically denied rights? I'm sure that's not hyperbole in any way.

Which rights are they being denied and please explain the step-by-step procedure in which makes this denial "systematic"

edit on 22-10-2013 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)

One of many!

www.washingtontimes.com...

I can agree on that one. But, I also remember when OWS was being criticized by tea partiers for being dead beats and liberals looking for a handout. Dirty hippies etc etc...and told to go get a job and that they have no right to protest on private property.

This one incident does not mean a systematic denial of rights, however.

You allowed to be offended but I assure you that the Tea Party would fight tooth and nail to keep their right to protest and all the constitutional liberties for that matter!

So one denial of rights is okay? Anytime a right is removed it should be protested to the fullest extent! And trust me when I say there is been HUNDREDS of these very same examples of Tea Party members being denied certain rights others are enjoying today.

edit on 22-10-2013 by Bearack because: (no reason given)

I didn't say it was okay- I just said I understood the point on that example. But systematic denial of rights? That just doesn't exist.
Furthermore, I am pointing out what I witnessed first hand and what the world saw- OWS was criticized at every turn for amassing in protest of what the tea party SHOULD have been protesting. But instead, they were called names and told to get off peoples lawns and what not.
The tea party should have thought about complaining about one set of protesters rights. They sent a message that squashing protest was what they wanted and it was okay....
Now, it happens to them and it's a problem. That actually seems like typical hypocritical, irrational behavior of the tea partiers.

WarminIndy
reply to post by MrPlow

 

No one has the right to protest on private property, as private property belongs to the individual and not the public. No one has the right to protest and riot to destroy the private property of the individual.

Tell me, in what world do you live in that it is ok to destroy an individual's property? If the OWS was advocating taking private property and making it collective to all the people, then you have entered into a Communist society where no one has the right to any property any more and all is distributed according to how the powers see fit for it to be distributed.

If the OWS was advocating the collection of all wealth and distributing it among everyone, then that is Communism. Imagine this, someone thinks you have a better computer than they do, but they don't or can't get one so they go to your house and protest about you having a better computer and demand that you share it equally with them. So how many people are you going to allow to come into your home and use your computer and internet? Would you allow that? Would you put limits on just who can use it or not, and would you tell them how many minutes they can use it?

There are only so many resources out there, once a resource is gone, it's gone. But you have to take all the ideologies and make it practical, how would it affect you? You have private property, so should your private property be protested over and destroyed when you don't want them to have access to your private property?

Thank you for your elitist response, but as the old saying goes "you're part of the problem"
This country is being ruined by big banks and big corporations & people are fed up with the legal protections afforded to them, but not the common man.
Wall street dumps derivatives on the market, knowing they are # thus collapsing the economy but ohhhh...those poor dears...don't stand on their property and yell!
What a total joke

reply to post by MrPlow


Why were they on people's lawns in the first place?

The OWS was advocating Socialism that began with Canadian college students who were protesting American banks, not Canadian banks, and yet it doesn't seem to phase people any that the OWS protest began outside of the United States in the first place.

Should the Tea Party go to Canada and trample Canadians lawns to make a point about Canadian banking? Would that be ok to do?

reply to post by MrPlow


Oh my goodness...you sure make a lot of assumptions about me. I am an elitist? Can you explain to the whole world and this thread exactly HOW I am an elitist?

Since you know so much about my life, explain this.

See, you can't take disagreement, so the first thing you do is throw up the "elitist" card. So, back it up, show us how I am elitist.

WarminIndy
reply to post by MrPlow

 

Why were they on people's lawns in the first place?

The OWS was advocating Socialism that began with Canadian college students who were protesting American banks, not Canadian banks, and yet it doesn't seem to phase people any that the OWS protest began outside of the United States in the first place.

Should the Tea Party go to Canada and trample Canadians lawns to make a point about Canadian banking? Would that be ok to do?

No it wasn't. There was never any agenda. At all. The socialist agenda that you saw is what the media presented to you. OWS LITERALLY began in the US- outside of wall street. Who effing cares where the students came from? The tea parties darling, Ted Cruz, is from Canada- so what's your point?
The protest was always about one thing and one thing only- money interests ruling and destroying THIS country. Period. Thanks.

WarminIndy
reply to post by MrPlow

 

Oh my goodness...you sure make a lot of assumptions about me. I am an elitist? Can you explain to the whole world and this thread exactly HOW I am an elitist?

Since you know so much about my life, explain this.

See, you can't take disagreement, so the first thing you do is throw up the "elitist" card. So, back it up, show us how I am elitist.

Anyone with the stones to defend....DEFEND...banks and corporations who have a problem with protesters is either an elitist, or a wanna-be elitist. I especially love the wanna-be ones. Those tea partiers who think that if they keep voting for R's- they will one day become wealthy too...while the reality is THEY are the ones living in trailers, sucking the most off of the Governments tit.
That may not be you- but your enragement over OWS protesting corporate interests sure is suspect

XPLodER

.....

i ask you in all honesty,
why now?
why when the deficit hits 17 trillion?
did it not matter when it was 10 trillion?

why is this the "amount" of debt that must not be passed?

why is it ok to war but not to feed and educate people?

why is this "patriotism" being feed by people who call for lower taxes on only themselves?

why does the idea that the timing of all this is not a co incidence not obvious?

how do you stop deficit spending without damaging your economy?

why do big corps "offshore" their tax money as to "avoid" paying their fair share?

why is it that "austerity" (fiscal responsibility) only benefits the same banks that created the need for bailouts?

why do people call for lower taxes for the rich when the poor have had stagnant wages for a decade?

i really could go on........

but ill wait to see if you address any of my questions

xploder

Well I will try. It's became a problem when it (Debt) started to dwarf the Revenues collected by the Government. I would say that bridge was crossed for sure in 2008, actually well before then, but 2008 was the avalanche. Before that, the debt was still potentially manageable, now it's to the point where in less than a decade, over 1/3 of the revenues collected by the Government will just satisfy the interest payments on the Debt, never reducing the Debt itself. The US Government will become an indentured servant of the debt,which we will never get out of.


We do feed and educate people and yes we do war as well. We have overextended all of those, paying with credit. We need to reign in our spending, no amount of revenue generating will matter if we don't trim down our budgets.

How do you stop deficit spending without damaging your economy??? Simple. You don't. You have to take those lumps and pain when you tackle this. There isn't a way that getting our economic house in order doesn't involve LOTS of pain for almost everyone. Doing nothing is the far worse scenario. Eventually interest rates have to go UP, when they do, which they will, that is when the pain starts in earnest.

To be really honest, it will take a mixture of both cuts and revenue generation to get back to sane levels of debt. Zero debt isn't feasible and 20 Trillion of debt is an abomination that will turn us into a Third World Country, which some seem to think isn't such a bad idea, that's really scary.

We need to get Debt back to about 7-8 Trillion with a robust growing Economy after that. I'd like it to be less, but I'm trying to be realistic. I don't claim it to be an easy fix. I would Cut at least 2 dollars in budget for every 1 dollar of revenue increase. To be even more honest it will take more like 3.5 to 4 dollars in budget cuts for each $1 of revenue increase to really make dents in the Budget Deficit and National Debt. I would even take a $4 cut in budget for $1.50 in revenue increase if those increases were time limited and only happened if the budget was cut by that $4. No more games with budget numbers and kicking the can.

Xploder, would you cut the budget very substantially if we raised revenue at the same time?

Mind you during this, our economy at best will be flat, worst it will contract. Not a good thing but that's the mess we have gotten ourselves into.

All Truth be told, we should have let everything hit rock bottom in 2008 and 2009. No Bailouts, no TARP that benefited only the banks. I look back at the Bailout money as money squandered and both Party's had a hand in it. No sense in trying to blame one or the other when they both bent the American Public over.
It would have sucked but by now we would probably be on the right course economically.

I Just want a growing economy for EVERYONE where we aren't feeding a Fat Government who just gobbles up any extra money you give them like it was a potato chip. Is that too much to ask?

Like I said, in less than a decade, about 1/3 of the money collected by the US Government will go towards just paying INTEREST on our national debt. Wake up. Somebody try and tell me how THAT is a good thing. I would be interested in that answer.