By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Tea Party - how frightening is this movement?

rocketpig on 29 October 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
rocketpig said:
ConnorJCP said:
rocketpig said:
ConnorJCP said:

I pray Australia never becomes what the USA has become.

You mean it's not already? I've met some pretty damned intolerant people from Australia, especially if they're from rural areas. They stack up unfavorably even to the most redneck of Americans.

No, its not even half as bad as the USA.
USA is still pretty split up between the states.
In USA alot of people believe in religion, and are extremely hypocrite when it comes to their 1st amendment and they tend to forget the rest of the world doesnt share it.
Although ever since Howard lost the election, Australia is becoming worse though. (IMO)
But no, it is not nearly as bad as The USA.

I look at Australia, see rampant racism against aboriginals, a lack of same-sex marriage rights, limited abortion legality, and if they had any Muslims, I'm sure they'd have more than their fair share of Islamophobia just like America or Europe.

So, what makes the USA twice as bad again? Religious people? Because the way I look at it, those American religious zealots aren't getting their way much lately (or ever, really). You see a lot of negativity from American press because the nutjobs always rise to the top. Really, we're no more or less progressive than most of the rest of the western world.

America certainly isn't twice as bad.

Same sex marriage will happen sooner rather then later (especially given the balance of power thats partially held by the greens), the majority of the population supports it, its just a matter of time.

Abortion is subject to state laws and is more open in some states such as the Australian Capital territory where its completely free and less so in others. Thats the price you pay for having state based laws.

A larger percentage of Australia (though some reports I read said its roughly the same percentage) is Muslim then in the US and we don't have significant issues except for the odd thing here or there.

I would agree that racism towards the indiginous Australians is certainly an issue, especially in the Norther Territory and in rural areas. However steps are continually being made to combat this, the thing is , since such a small percentage of the populace is Aboriginal its easy to go for years without running into an Aboriginal person. Out of sight out of mind unfortunately.

That's really my point. Any country that is multi-cultural has its fair share of problems and I have a hard time looking at any country and saying "well, they're pretty much problem free" outside of some of the northern Euro countries who don't have to deal with as much multi-cultural influence as the southern Euros. It's pretty easy to be problem-free when people share the same background and have major connections in heritage. People hear more about the US' problems because we're bigger and more powerful. Plus, our free speech, political system, and media tend to favor letting the loudmouths get the most face time. After awhile, they'll fade off into the background and go away, only to be replaced by the next loudmouth. Given our governmental structure, the nutjobs rarely get any kind of real power.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
NiKKoM on 29 October 2010

I'm scared... look at them! look at them!



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Mr Khan on 29 October 2010
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

They tried getting Republican input. Why do you think we have this watered-down wishy-washy health care bill, instead of something with some teeth to it?

Because there were too many Dems who wouldn't vote for a public option.

And i'm rather steamed about that, too. Treacherous Blue Dogs, my own congressman was one of 'em, but nobody stood up to him in the primaries, so we couldn't clean house



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

HappySqurriel on 29 October 2010
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

They tried getting Republican input. Why do you think we have this watered-down wishy-washy health care bill, instead of something with some teeth to it?

Because there were too many Dems who wouldn't vote for a public option.

Or you could phrase it as "Most Americans didn't want a more 'comprehensive' healthcare reform bill" ...

The majority of Americans wanted healthcare reform bill that was straight forward and focused on eliminating the problems in the current private system, not the destruction of the current system with a public system put in its place. Every Democrat in an "unsafe" seat was worried about what this kind of bill would do to their re-election chances; and even the "watered down" program is far to extreme for most voters in these districts, and the Democrats will lose these seats primarily because they weren't listening to the voters.



badgenome on 29 October 2010
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

They tried getting Republican input. Why do you think we have this watered-down wishy-washy health care bill, instead of something with some teeth to it?

Because there were too many Dems who wouldn't vote for a public option.

And i'm rather steamed about that, too. Treacherous Blue Dogs, my own congressman was one of 'em, but nobody stood up to him in the primaries, so we couldn't clean house

Yeah, that's not an uncommon sentiment. It's amusing how, when the Tea Party says that sort of thing, it's a civil war in the Republican party (!) or a Stalinist purge (!!!). When it occurs in the Democratic party, it's just the raucous but healthy nature of the Big Tent.



Around the Network
badgenome on 29 October 2010
HappySqurriel said:

The majority of Americans wanted healthcare reform bill that was straight forward and focused on eliminating the problems in the current private system, not the destruction of the current system with a public system put in its place.

It's even worse than that, I think. Prior to its being jammed through Congress, Shikha Dalmia warned that Obamacare, far from creating real reform, would lead to a state of permanent revolution and upheaval in the health care system. In his otherwise completely uninteresting (and self-diminishing) Daily Show interview this week, Obama admitted to as much. As huge and contrived and expensive as this piece of shit is, it would just be the beginning if he has his druthers; I hope to God he doesn't.



HappySqurriel on 29 October 2010
badgenome said:
HappySqurriel said:

The majority of Americans wanted healthcare reform bill that was straight forward and focused on eliminating the problems in the current private system, not the destruction of the current system with a public system put in its place.

It's even worse than that, I think. Prior to its being jammed through Congress, Shikha Dalmia warned that Obamacare, far from creating real reform, would lead to a state of permanent revolution and upheaval in the health care system. In his otherwise completely uninteresting (and self-diminishing) Daily Show interview this week, Obama admitted to as much. As huge and contrived and expensive as this piece of shit is, it would just be the beginning if he has his druthers; I hope to God he doesn't.

I understand that, I was just pointing out that the Democrats were unable to pass through their comprehensive reform bill (even though they controlled both houses, had a president in the white house, and had a filibuster proof majority) because of how amazingly unpopular it was; not because the powerless Republicans blocked it. If it was even moderately popular with conservative Democrats or independent voters it would have passed without any trouble, and if it was popular with the majority of Americans many Republicans would have been "forced" to back it.




theprof00 on 29 October 2010
badgenome said:

Yeah, that's not an uncommon sentiment. It's amusing how, when the Tea Party says that sort of thing, it's a civil war in the Republican party (!) or a Stalinist purge (!!!). When it occurs in the Democratic party, it's just the raucous but healthy nature of the Big Tent.


I don't think that's the sentiment anywhere. If you really believe there is no major split in the Republican party, you are not being honest with yourself. Blue Dogs are few and far between. Republican party is looking at aggression from the tea party, independant party, ultra conservatives (sarah palin), and line conservatives, not even taking the booming religious right. Things are not looking good for the republican party.

Democrats have the blue dogs, and ...what? Crazy athiests? 



badgenome on 29 October 2010
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Yeah, that's not an uncommon sentiment. It's amusing how, when the Tea Party says that sort of thing, it's a civil war in the Republican party (!) or a Stalinist purge (!!!). When it occurs in the Democratic party, it's just the raucous but healthy nature of the Big Tent.


I don't think that's the sentiment anywhere. If you really believe there is no major split in the Republican party, you are not being honest with yourself. Blue Dogs are few and far between. Republican party is looking at aggression from the tea party, independant party, ultra conservatives (sarah palin), and line conservatives, not even taking the booming religious right. Things are not looking good for the republican party.

Democrats have the blue dogs, and ...what? Crazy athiests? 

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.



theprof00 on 29 October 2010
badgenome said:

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

It's not, nobody in the democratic party considers blue dogs as healthy activity. You're trying to point out hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

The only overlap in those groups is a shared end. They all want liberals out of power. How can you even begin to compare blue dogs with the division in the right between GOP and Tea Party? I'm surprised, to be honest. You act like it's such a small division can easily be fixed by a nomination! Let's wait til that happens and see what you say then. Just so I can be sure, what kind of candidate would be ideal?  

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.

Says the side who complains that liberals vote along party lines 95% of the time. The right is always right, right?