4th Of July Tea Party

[Black87LSC]

It looks like plans for another Tea Party in Washington on the 4th of July :Beer

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/events/july-4th-taking-the-party-to

 

[fossten]

I think I'll go to this one, since I'm a right wing extremist, and a veteran (read: terrorist) to boot!

 

[topher5150]

I think I'll go to this one, since I'm a right wing extremist, and a veteran (read: terrorist) to boot!

...well I oppose abortion and own two high powered military rifles so I guess I'm on the same list LOL

 

[Calabrio]

At the rallies here, people were talking about doing it again on the 4th.

Independent, local, grass root events.
NOT centrally planned like the media was trying to present them as being.

 

[shagdrum]

I heard talk about July forth at the tea party here in Topeka, Kansas.

 

[luxuryrules]

Gather and protest, Ye Who Disagree. Just like all the liberals who protested the war in Iraq and gathered to protest that, for all the good it did.

I'm with you guys in principle and don't like how my tax money is being used, but the Tea Parties aren't going to do jack except make the protestors look like whiny liberal college kids. Think I'd rather contribute to the economy by buying hot dogs & hamburgers, rolls, condiments, snacks, & beer and having a barbeque.

 

[shagdrum]

but the Tea Parties aren't going to do jack except make the protestors look like whiny liberal college kids.

Maybe, maybe not. The media is doing everything it can to marginalize the protesters. But there is a profound difference between the anti-war protestors and the tea party protesters. The tea party thing is grassroots and has definite momentum going for it right now (weather that will stay through 2010 and maybe 2012 is another question). The message at the core of the tea parties does resonate with many in this country as well. The main reason conservatives turned their back on the GOP and, arguably, democrats were given control is because of excessive government spending by the GOP. The Dems have increased that dramatically and people are getting upset (I just hope we don't go third party).

the war protesters are a different story. They were, many times (if not most of the time) astroturfing; not a grass roots thing but artificial. Their message didn't resonate as much with people, despite media efforts to re-enforce their message, either. While people may have been against the war later on, they were not for immediate withdrawal, which the protesters were all about. Many of the polls cited concerning the Iraq war were very biased and unreliable. Loaded, or misleading questions were the norm.

The big question isn't, "how many people were at the tea parties", but "how many people agree with the tea parties".

 

[luxuryrules]

The main reason conservatives turned their back on the GOP and, arguably, democrats were given control is because of excessive government spending by the GOP. The Dems have increased that dramatically and people are getting upset (I just hope we don't go third party).

I dunno. There is a fair amount of that going on, but I would be willing to bet that a bigger reason the conservatives turned their backs on the GOP was simply that McCain-Palin offered very little forward vision. It seems especially during the final few months of the campaign that debates hinged on why not to vote for Obama instead of why to vote for McCain. So much campaign garbage was spent telling the American public all the bad things that Obama did/would do instead of telling the Public what McCain did/wanted to do. Not only did that make the voters really question what McCain had to offer, but the campaign kept the focus on the Obama camp and the principle of "all publicity is good publicity" would have kicked in. Just as noteworthy, the "vote for McCain because he is not Obama" logic worked about as well as the "vote for Kerry because he is not Bush" campaign worked a few years ago.
Of course, as far as frustration with the Bush administration went, the fiscal irresponsibility was only a part of that as well. Many people had gotten frustrated with the War, sick of the rest of the worlds' hatred of America, and just tired of the way things worked inside the Beltway - it took just a campaign of "change" to win them over, provided the change was spelled out and offered a clear path for the next few years.

The big question isn't, "how many people were at the tea parties", but "how many people agree with the tea parties".

And that is the more important part. I will never set foot in any tea party, but I WILL vote out everybody I can who has participated in the fiscal irresponsibility of the last six months. I would be willing to bet there are many more like me - I don't need to be seen, but when the time comes my voice will be heard.

 

[shagdrum]

I dunno. There is a fair amount of that going on, but I would be willing to bet that a bigger reason the conservatives turned their backs on the GOP was simply that McCain-Palin offered very little forward vision. It seems especially during the final few months of the campaign that debates hinged on why not to vote for Obama instead of why to vote for McCain.

I agree, but I don't think there is a difference. McCain was a symbol of what had been wrong with the GOP to many conservatives; a RINO; Democrat-lite. You can't win elections when all you have to run on is getting people to vote against the other guy. You have to get them to vote for you.

Basically, McCain was symptomatic of the problem with the GOP. Though I think people are being reminded of how much worse the Dems are right now.

Thomas Sowell said it best when he said that the difference between McCain and Obama was the difference between disappointment and despair. The thing is, you can't win if you can't make your base want to vote for you and not simply against the other guy.

...the "vote for McCain because he is not Obama" logic worked about as well as the "vote for Kerry because he is not Bush" campaign worked a few years ago.

I think you nailed it right there.

Many people had gotten frustrated with the War, sick of the rest of the worlds' hatred of America, and just tired of the way things worked inside the Beltway - it took just a campaign of "change" to win them over, provided the change was spelled out and offered a clear path for the next few years.

Well, the hatred of America is ultimately based in jealousy and envy. You cannot do away with that except by hurting yourself. The hatred thing is not a legitimate critique because of it's based in the vices of jealousy and envy. You don't legitimize sentiment like that. The problem, when the hatred stems from those vices, is not with you, but with the people controlled by that hatred.

As to the "vision", unfortunately, that vision was based on a lot of false premises and unrealistic hope.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, the hatred of America is ultimately based in jealousy and envy. You cannot do away with that except by hurting yourself. The hatred thing is not a legitimate critique because of it's based in the vices of jealousy and envy. You don't legitimize sentiment like that. The problem, when the hatred stems from those vices, is not with you, but with the people controlled by that hatred.

Shag, how do you know that the hatred of America is based in jealousy and envy? I have to spend a couple weeks every year in Europe - they may not like the USA, but it isn't because they are envious or jealous of us.... Why would they be jealous of us?

 

[Calabrio]

Shag, how do you know that the hatred of America is based in jealousy and envy? I have to spend a couple weeks every year in Europe - they may not like the USA, but it isn't because they are envious or jealous of us.... Why would they be jealous of us?

Because for the past century they've been globally impotent.
They have no influence, they have no ability to project either economic or military power. They have limited natural resource, weak economies, and are relicts of history that are being further suffocated by socialism. And in many ways,they are dependent on the American military for defense and the American economy.

 

[foxpaws]

Because for the past century they've been globally impotent.
They have no influence, they have no ability to project either economic or military power. They have limited natural resource, weak economies, and are relicts of history that are being further suffocated by socialism. And in many ways,they are dependent on the American military for defense and the American economy.

Cal, maybe in the last century - but things have changed a lot in the last 10 years in Europe.

The generation that may have felt 'jealous' about the results of WWII or the aftermath are pretty much gone, and what does remain of that generation is really not a factor. Europe has embraced world citizenship, has finally realized that they are stronger as a group (i.e. the strength of the Euro) and they realize that their economic future probably doesn't lie west with the US but east.

Plus - your post is just 'supposition'. They aren't jealous, or envious, nor do I really see 'hatred' when I go there. Mostly what I notice is a loss of 'esteem' for the US, there still is a sense of deference to the US, but not esteem. I do think they used to be a bit envious of us, but, the last few years, that has changed. There is this feeling that the US has this air of recalcitrance about us. It is almost as though Europe, after centuries of war, death and extremes has finally come to the realization that there are better ways.

In some ways the creation of EU has created an excitement - and a homogenous of peoples and cultures. You really are beginning to have this feeling that the people there are citizens of 'Europe'. I actually think they are starting something very different.

 

[shagdrum]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that we have been the lone superpower in the world ever since the fall of the USSR. Many elitists both here and in europe have seen fit to try and downplay that or dishonestly change that distinction. But the fact of the matter is that we have a world system today that, effectively, has the US at the head of it. That leads to stability, which many appreciate, and resentment toward that superpower (USA) as well. The specifics of that resentment change with the circumstances, but the core of that resentment stems from that fact.

That core has not "changed in the past ten years". There may be a trend that might see it change someday, but we are still the head of a system that makes the world reasonably stable.

Also, that jealousy and envy is not at an individual level (as you seem to imply when you talk about not "seeing" it when you are there), it is a national thing. It would likely manifest itself in the form of a general animosity toward the US, on an individual level. And it is not, necessarily all the citizen, but in the elites and social institutions.

Now, how are you going to try and distort this...

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, do we really have any idea of what China is doing? I think your idea of 'super power' really has to do with 'policeman'. Being the policeman doesn't necessarily make you the one who really holds all the power. Power comes in many forms. I think we will find that out more and more, easily within the next decade. And I think the rest of the world is realizing that as well. Europe certainly is. Don't put all your eggs in the basket marked USA. In fact, it might be best if you have fewer and fewer eggs in that basket.

And now you are talking about resentment - which is quite different than envy or jealousy. And that jealousy is at a national level, but not at an individual level? I don't really understand that - the Italian government is envious of the US? It's people aren't. You certainly don't see much in the way of Italians immigrating to the US, in fact, it is now the other way -

 

[Calabrio]

You're view of Europe is completely wrong. You seem to be basing it on the anecdotal evidence collected by talking to a handful of European art tarts or something. I don't presume to know who you hang out with though, but it's of no consequence, so there's no point in correcting me.

Europe is not the fairy land you seem to believe it is. The socialism and unions have eliminated their ability to compete in the world economically. The welfare state is bankrupt, immigration is further bleeding the system dry. Frankly, the continent is on the brink of a blazing collapse. Between the economic hardships, the Muslims, and the North African population and demographic shift.

As for them being "citizens of the world"- what type of utopian crap are you a part of? You might want to be careful the way you play your cards, I can see the hand your holding tonight.... and it's even worse than I'd even thought.

 

[foxpaws]

Europeans build better cars, better nuclear reactors, and better cordon bleu. //////s

Invest in the Euro if you want to make money - the euro is more stable than the dollar. The EU GDP is greater than the US (not surprising - their population is greater too). However, where I have to spend most of my time, Norway - is 3rd on the per capita GDP scale - compared to the US - #6.

Some euro art tart trash - mostly relatives... And, since I don't gamble on cards, I can't imagine what cards you are seeing

 

[Calabrio]

Europeans build better cars, better nuclear reactors, and better cordon bleu. //////s

They have designed some better cars, but that's not because of some superiority, it's because they aren't forced to build to a low price point like the Big Three were.

Tragically, we haven't had the opportunity to build a nuclear power plant in this country for over 30 years, so what are you comparing to?


The perceived "strengths" you mentioned aren't because of any European superiority, it's merely the because Americans have their hands tied due to regulation.

Invest in the Euro if you want to make money - the euro is more stable than the dollar. The EU GDP is greater than the US (not surprising - their population is greater too). However, where I have to spend most of my time, Norway - is 3rd on the per capita GDP scale - compared to the US - #6.

That's horrible investment advice.
I'm not saying you should invest in the dollar, that'd be a huge mistake too-

European countries are in big trouble, dealing with the huge influx of immigrants coming from Pakistan, the Middle East, and the rest of North Africa. Draining the social welfare systems.

If you think that Europe, with it's huge government expenditures, ethnic conflict, dwindling native populations, and tightening economies, are the future- you really need to do some more reading. Not to mention the conflicts between old and new Europe and the huge redistribution of wealth through the EU....

Perhaps the time you've spent in Norway is giving you a skewed perspective. Norway is different than much of Europe with it's small, still mostly homogeneous population and rich oil and gas revenue that funds government. But it's not isolated, and it too is suffering problems from the segregated and rapidly growing muslim populations.

 

[foxpaws]

They have designed some better cars, but that's not because of some superiority, it's because they aren't forced to build to a low price point like the Big Three were.

Nothing held back Detroit from building expensive cars - GT40s... Give me a Ferrari any day of the week (and most people agreed, you can buy new GT40s that have been sitting on lots for 2 to 3 years) - Cadillac and Lincoln haven't been world class for decades (although, I was in a new CTS V the other day - we are getting closer again).

Tragically, we haven't had the opportunity to build a nuclear power plant in this country for over 30 years, so what are you comparing to?

45 years ago the French were building better reactors then we were 30 years ago.

European countries are in big trouble, dealing with the huge influx of immigrants coming from Pakistan, the Middle East, and the rest of North Africa. Draining the social welfare systems.

And we aren't in trouble with illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, as well as the Middle East and Africa draining our systems? It seems like the immigrants into Europe are usually absorbed fairly quickly - without all the 'hassles' involved here with immigration policies. I could be wrong about that - Norway really doesn't have all that many immigrants - too cold.

Perhaps the time you've spent in Norway is giving you a skewed perspective. Norway is different than much of Europe with it's small, still mostly homogeneous population and rich oil and gas revenue that funds government. But it's not isolated, and it too is suffering problems from the segregated and rapidly growing muslim populations.

I will agree that Norway is a bit different. And the muslim population really isn't growing all that fast in Norway - it is really cold there. But, the people in Norway are a lot like all the people I have met in Europe. They are excited about the changes that a unified Europe represents. I don't think they are as afraid of change as maybe we are.

 

[Calabrio]

Nothing held back Detroit from building expensive cars - GT40s... Give me a Ferrari any day of the week (and most people agreed, you can buy new GT40s that have been sitting on lots for 2 to 3 years) - Cadillac and Lincoln haven't been world class for decades (although, I was in a new CTS V the other day - we are getting closer again).

Nothing stopped the U.S. from building ultra-expensive cars- except the market. A Ferrari is a quarter million dollars, who's going to buy a quarter million dollar Ford? The badge doesn't have the prestige to warrant that kind of price, regardless the brilliance of the design.

By the way, where have you seen or heard of unsold GT-40s sitting on the lot? That's the first I've ever heard of it, and frankly, I don't believe it. If you could buy unsold models from the dealer, why would I keep finding "used" examples for $150k.

And we aren't in trouble with illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, as well as the Middle East and Africa draining our systems?

Oh, another one of your "so do you" arguments.
I would agree that we do have a problem with the Southern border, but we don't have near the problems that Europe is experiencing. Nor have we had the same kind of overly generous welfare system. And we also don't have such radical negative population growth birth rate.

It seems like the immigrants into Europe are usually absorbed fairly quickly - without all the 'hassles' involved here with immigration policies. I could be wrong about that - Norway really doesn't have all that many immigrants - too cold

You're wrong on all counts here.
100% wrong. Immigrants are not assimilated in Europe as they are here.
Norway DOES have a Muslim problem, the population is growing extremely quickly and they predominantly live in just two different cities.

You also have the problems of the Muslim immigrants coming into the country, living on welfare, using the socialized medicine, and going to college and earning advanced degrees in science and medicine. After they complete their internships and earn some credentials, all at the expense of the tax payer, they post their resume on the internet and then get a job practicing medicine in a free country, like the U.S., where they can earn a lot more money. Leave the European's left holding the bag financing them for all these years and suffering from a talent shortage in the field.

will agree that Norway is a bit different. And the muslim population really isn't growing all that fast in Norway - it is really cold there.

Again, incorrect, it's gone up 10% in the last few years.

But, the people in Norway are a lot like all the people I have met in Europe. They are excited about the changes that a unified Europe represents. I don't think they are as afraid of change as maybe we are.

Again, you're totally wrong.
You clearly aren't even casually following the news from Europe. Not Norway, but the rest of the continent. Your perception is radically skewed and simply wrong.

 

[foxpaws]

My perception may be skewed - but I am there almost every year, and I at least have some first hand experience, and historical perspective, having gone there all my life.

The idea that they are 'jealous' of us is just hard to believe. I certainly don't see that. And since I am not a tourist when I get there, I would think I would have a pretty good perspective of how they 'really think'.

Muslims make up about 2.5 percent of Norway's population - however in Oslo, where I usually go, it is obviously more. So, I guess in the next few years if the growth rate is 10% it could skyrocket to 2.75% of the total population would be muslim. Trondheim, the other place I end up going once in a while, has a tiny population. They obviously stand out though.

In Oslo - they seem mostly like workers in places like restaurants and hotels. I don't know how much that 2.5% population number drains their resources. I would think not all that much.

Oh, our local ford dealer - Omerea - has had a GT in their showroom forever - it is still there (one of the retro blue and orange ones). Now, maybe it is the boss's - but it still has the sticker on it.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, do we really have any idea of what China is doing? I think your idea of 'super power' really has to do with 'policeman'.

China is well on it's way to becoming a superpower, but they don't have the influence we do. Once again, your perceptions are wrong and skewed (or you are intentionally mischarcterizing me, intentionally, which is also likely). My view has nothing to do with simply police power. The idea of a superpower is at the core of international politics and you don't seem to understand it but are trying to talk authoritatively on it. Here is the explanation of what a superpower is:

A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon." It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

After the Cold War, the most common belief held that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a superpower, although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status. China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century. Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar​

You really should understand what you are talking about before you comment on it.

 

[shagdrum]

My perception may be skewed - but I am there almost every year, and I at least have some first hand experience, and historical perspective, having gone there all my life.

The idea that they are 'jealous' of us is just hard to believe. I certainly don't see that. And since I am not a tourist when I get there, I would think I would have a pretty good perspective of how they 'really think'.

Can you say appeal to authority?

 

[foxpaws]

After the Cold War, the most common belief held that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a superpower, although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status. China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century. Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar

You really should understand what you are talking about before you comment on it.

And you should really read the entire article before you post it shag...

I would have thought you would have really been drawn to hegemon - it is one of Orson Scott Card's favorite words...

 

[shagdrum]

And you should really read the entire article before you post it shag...

I did read that. It is clear that those people are in the minority. And I already commented on those views earlier in this thread, as well. Here is what I wrote in post #13:

Many elitists both here and in Europe have seen fit to try and downplay [the fact that America is the lone superpower in the world] or dishonestly change that distinction.​

I have read a number of the arguments given for the doubt of the existence of a superpower in the post cold war era. I already summarized those arguments in post #13.

Maybe you should remember what others have posted earlier in the debate, instead of "conveniently" forgetting that.

I would have thought you would have really been drawn to hegemon - it is one of Orson Scott Card's favorite words...

 

[SoonerLS]

In some ways the creation of EU has created an excitement - and a homogenous of peoples and cultures.

You might see that among the western and northern (culturally and ethnically) Europeans, but I think Turkey and the eastern Europe nations would tend to disagree with that assessment. I've heard plenty of news reports (from such notable ultra-right wing news outlets as NPR and CNN ) on the insular nature of the Muslim communities in Europe and the problems of integrating them and other immigrants (primarily North African and middle Eastern) into that "homogeneous" society.

And that lack of real homogeneity is not just coming from the new Europeans. My parents went on a mission trip to Romania, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic a few years ago, and after that was over, they spent two weeks staying with a little old lady in Germany. They remarked on her repeated derisive comments about the "turkeys" in the village--immigrants from Turkey who, according to her, at least, had come to take advantage of Germany's welfare system. (That jives with the aforementioned news reports, too.)

Europe may be a lot of things, but homogeneous it ain't.