Ever since I had the ability to actually think for my self it seems I had the words 'Tree hugging Communist faggot' stamped on my head. And you know, I never really took that as an insult because they're right. In just three words it pretty much explains me as a human being.

Because it's true, I am a tree hugging communist faggot. It's just a shame though that the idiots who call me this usually can't tell the difference between an insult and the truth. You see, Calling me an empathetic gay socialist really fails in being an insult because it basically supports the idea that I'm a good person. Because for one, I actually know what these words mean. For any morons that might possibly exist in this site please read the following sentence:

If you're going to insult someone at least know the difference between an insult and a political ideal. I mean, you can go around calling people communists, Islams, and Jews all you want but when you call a communist a communist, an Islam an Islam or a Jew a Jew then you're basically showing how stupid you really are.

Yeah, this thread is about the tea party, my favorite political movement. While Liberals and Conservatives will lie and bull shit their way into power the Tea Party blatantly shows you just how ridiculous politics really is. Allow me to clarify -

So basically, Ron Paul who's very popular amongst Conservatives and even Liberals leaves the tea party - A socially liberal and economically conservative party at the time - and Palin takes over. Turning it into a far right wing party composed of people that even Conservatives are ashamed of. You know, this isn't a fucking movement, this is a god damned comedy. And this is why I love the tea party, it's entertainment.

It's fun in a 'Look at these silly nitwits' kind of way. So basically, they're protesters that hate protesters. People that hate Teachers being paid more but never consider how much Palin is paid. And they're Far Right Wing group of Conservatives that disapprove of socialism while being in a party that's partially socialist. I can't even face palm this, how could anyone? It's just so ludicrous we probably don't even need the comedy channel anymore.

I especially love how they call the protesting teachers communist thugs when they're the ones holding up signs that basically insult every single race and religion outside of Pasty white Christians. And heck, I bet once half those Christians turn out being a different sect of Christians then the majority they'll probably insult them as well. Can anyone take these guys seriously?

And you know, despite these delusional people living in a world where Obama is an Islamic Nazi and everyone but them are communists I want to point out one thing - Technically they're communist as well. Besides being in a party that's partially socialist I would love to also point out the massive fail in their consistency -

They're blue collar workers that want teachers to be paid less. Technically, isn't that Communist by principle? Is it not communism to bring the teachers who are paid more down to their level of income? I think it is. So there we go, not only are these morons protesters that protest against 'communist' protesters but they're also technically Communist as well.

It's a joke, one big joke. But could we really expect anything less from Palin? She's not a politician, she's a clown, a very funny clown. Personally I think these protesters that protest against protesters should shut up and just let the teachers protest. These people are our educators and I believe they should be paid more. Heck, everyone should be paid more. And instead of pointing the finger at people that are paid slightly more we should complain about those who are paid far too much. I'll admit that Palin is my favorite comedian but despite that I understand that she should probably be paid less.

Go teachers go!

Socialism != Communism.

FYI

Actually, Socialism is not the same thing as Communism. Socialism is about managing the economy through redistribution of resources and social control meanwhile communism is more about controlling redistribution through the economy and the government.

The quick 101 is that Socialism is where goods and services are owned publicly meanwhile communism is where the government owns everything. Example -

Communism is where the father owns the cookie jar and redistributes it accordingly to his two sons. In short, ''father knows best.' Socialism is where the family owns it and they all take an equal amount, say like five. The biggest difference between socialism and communism is that socialism (due to it's political ideal) can be implanted in democracy. Free health care and social security are two examples. Canada is no stranger to socialism and it's a democratic country. I can say this from experience for I am a Canadian and I consider this country Socialist - Democratic. Meanwhile, you could never combine Communism with capitalism simply because the government would own all the businesses.

See? There's a gigantic difference between the two of them. On a final note let me point out that there are also a lot of pseudo socialist countries - China is but one example.

That's what I said.

Um . . . when you typed Socialism = Communism didn't that imply they were the same ?

In Boolean terms, "!=" means not equal.

Shadowfox, novice liberals like yourself make even amateur liberals like myself facepalm. When you incoherently babble like this, you make us look as dumb as the tea baggers you hate so much. It's great that you picked the right side, I just wish you could understand why.

Try and learn more about what it means to be a liberal before trying to define what you think the opposition is.

Edit: Some constructive criticism. Start with the picture here:


If you even feel compelled to yell at someone you think is stupid, don't. You're probably going to say something stupid yourself. Just show them this pie chart. It sums up pretty much why we need a stronger tax bracket system.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 12 2011, 6:46 pm by ClansAreForGays.

Ron Paul, SEN.

Go on, you silly liberal. Impress me with your knowledge of our fine country.

I'm really confused with the subject here.

Is it that you like the tea party?

collective bargaining rights?

money?

palin?

Wouldn't this have fit better on your live journal?

"It sums up pretty much why we need a stronger tax bracket system."

Tax brackets would only be the start of it. And if you're talking about income tax, it really isn't sufficient to fix your problems. What you (and most of the rest of the developed world) needs is a financial transaction tax, or tobin tax.

Also your tax code as it is now is ridiculously complex and full of special provisions and payments etc. It's morphed into a ginormous beast that has multiple different purposes, instead of a sole purpose of collecting tax. Simplifying your tax code would allow it to be much more automated in this age of computers, removing a large dead-weight loss from your economy (in NZ, tax is deducted automatically from your pay and the average salaried/waged employee doesn't file a tax return at all).

Finally you need to tax industry a hell of a lot more and be able to regulate the tax laws of different states to make sure everyone's playing on as level a playing field as possible - but the beloved constitution (written hundreds of years ago but being completely flawless at the same time) prevents you from doing sensible things like that. There's a reason why the interstate commerce law has been so bastardised from it's (likely) original intent - it's simply necessary to do so or you wouldn't have a competitive economy in this day and age.

Okay, first explain FTT. I looked it up, and it looks like tobin already exists in the States? I know you're taxed on any profit you make, I would assume that would mean in the spot market as well. I know for a fact that if you make money on something like a COD you are indeed taxed, but I don't really play with currency.

I do not agree that industries need to be taxed more. I also do not agree with other states' taxing policies. I do not want to give the federal government the ability to control where state revenue goes.

I do agree that we need to re haul and simplify our federal tax system. I want a flat tax rate. And I do think that people need to understand that we need both to raise taxes across the board as well as cut spending if we want to make a dent in our debt. Taxes are taken out automatically from paychecks here too. You get a form at the end of the year that states how much you made and you fill out your tax forms. Its a bit more complicated for business (other than sole proprietors, but that's because business revenue is counted as personal income).

I think what the problem is isn't how much we're getting taxed - its all the tax breaks. Its hard to make money when everything has a tax break.

I live in Madison. I'm a conservative. The protesters aren't nice people like the media makes them out to be - I put on a nice little Walker For President shirt and I was harassed and threatened quite heavily

Anyways, you must live in the north. Because in the conservative south, the Tea Party is taken quite seriously. And no one wants teachers to get paid less. You really misunderstand the bill. People simply want the state not to go into debt. I wish we didn't have to have the bill, but there's few other options.

Also, didn't you use to be a furry? And now you're a homosexual "socialist"? Hmm..

No where in the world currently implements a tobin tax. One of the problems with the idea itself is that it generally needs to be implemented everywhere at the same time, otherwise the majority of transactions will simply move to a country that doesn't implement the tax. The EU has been seriously talking about a tobin tax as a result of their financial troubles in the last few years. What you're talking about is tax on profits/capital gain. A tobin tax is actually an up-front tax: if you convert $1M US into euros, then you might have to pay a $10,000 US tax up-front. If you're speculating around a 0.1-0.2% shift in the exchange rates over the course of a week, this completely blows your chance at profitability. That's very different from doing the conversion, making a $10,000 profit and then being taxed on that (so maybe you'd pay $2k in tax and get $8k in profit).

My point about the federal government having a level playing field is nothing to do with how a state spends it's revenues. It is how the states collect revenues. Eg all states have the same corporate tax rates, and the same rates for property ownership etc. This stops big companies from moving between states purely for tax benefits.

A flat tax rate is inherently regressive (as are all consumption taxes). If you want to even out the distribution of financial wealth, you need a progressive tax system, not a regressive one. The best form of taxation is really universal basic income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) with a flat tax rate. That resolves to being a progressive tax system, and also allows governments to implement big streamlining in how their benefit system works. If done properly, it would all but eliminate poverty and should cut down on a lot of homelessness.

And yes, tax breaks is what I'm talking about when I say all that industries need to be taxed more. Eg the tax breaks for oil companies and the tax breaks for corn ethanol producers.

I agree with the LiveJournal statement. I don't get the point of this thread, or why it is supposed to be taken remotely seriously as a discussion. You're rambling, sometimes you don't seem to know what you're talking about, and somehow we're supposed to follow along and discuss.

As a side note, I wonder how many "Tea Party" members are on medicare/medicaid or social security, since they seem to have no idea what they're all complaining about.

Yeah, "government motors" was a huge failure, too:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/general-motors/8346291/GM-hands-out-record-bonuses-as-it-drives-back-into-profit.html

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 12 2011, 11:22 pm by DevliN. Reason: Use edit next time.

In gaining liberty, you sacrifice equality, and vice versa. The Libertarian answer to the teetor-tot equation is complete freedom. Unfortunately this leads to majority rule, and high concentrations of wealth/power - the reason being no independent factor(government) is arbitrating anything; if you can do it, you can get away with it. Sure you're free to be gay or do what ever you want, but now employers will indirectly control your social life, because they also have the freedom to hire only people that go to their church.

The liberal believes some freedoms, like discrimination, must sacrificed for the greater good.

The more you know *rainbow*

To be fair, Cracked makes a good point about the Tea Party. The media only publicized the crazies, but in the end the Tea Party tried to open up the political system so that it no longer was ruled by two parties. Like the 60s. Pretty much everyone agreed that, for example, the draft was wrong, but that doesn't mean their hair was down to their knees. I think that the Tea Party - though it might split - will probably calm down as the crazy, old people disappear, and might become a viable party to vote for.

Also, everyone knows SS is a ponzi scheme

God Kame, all I had to do was google "social security ponzi scheme" and this was the first result http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm
You're a joke as well.
The Tea Party is nothing but a sub group of republicans. They vote republican, not some third party. The only thing they have an impact on is the GOP primaries. All they do is look for moderate republicans, and make sure they lose their primaries to far right radicals.

Also, are you talking about this article? http://www.cracked.com/funny-6587-tea-party/

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 14 2011, 12:19 am by ClansAreForGays.

I'm fairly certain Michele Bachmann is mentally challenged, as well, so the Tea Party has that going for it.

TL;DR: I'm smarter than everyone.
I color coded your grammatical errors for you. Green is stuff you should have added, e.g. commas. Red is stuff that is wrong. Apparently when you learned to think for yourself, you reinvented grammar.
I guess in thinking for yourself, you threw out society's numbering system.

Well, insults have an element of truth to them, don't they? If I called a Hitler a Nazi in a disparaging manner, you're telling the truth and insulting. It wouldn't be an insult if I called you a capitalist because that's just wrong.
Actually, no. If I ran around calling Jews Atheists, then I'd be showing how stupid I really am. You see, Jews are Jews, not Atheists. Understand?

When did this thread become about the Tea Party? Whatever, moving on.
Please do clarify that hyphen.
Here we find your alternate history. There is no leader of the Tea Party. It was never Ron Paul and it is not Sarah Palin. Palin may be popular figure among Tea Partiers, but she does not lead it. And yes it is a movement.

Here you imply that the Tea Party sprung up in protest against the Wisconsin protesters. This is blatantly false, as the Tea Party predates the recent protesters by two years. And the union debate is not about teacher pay. Teacher pay was untouched. Teachers are instead forced to contribute to their pension and their health care premiums like the rest of the country. They also lost the right to collectively bargain, i.e. have the unions write their contracts for them. And you assume that all Conservatives are Republicans, who themselves are "partially socialist". How you reach the conclusion that Republicans are "partially socialist" is beyond me. But you don't have to agree with the party line totally to join a party. A pro-life Democrat can exist.

Rich hypocrisy with bonus unnecessary capitalization. I love it! Also, they call the protesters union thugs, not communist thugs.

Sentence one is a run on sentence. Also, how often do you see Catholics (the majority of Christians) insulting everyone else?

That hyphen again! Anyway, this whole statement is so dumb I don't even know how to rebut it.

No, it isn't communist. You think that just because two things share a characteristic, they must be the same. You know neither what communism is nor what the fight in Wisconsin is about.

Two words: teachers lost.