I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol.
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People compl
When our economy is plagued by the cancer of debt then compromise is not the best idea. Lets wait a few more years for the tumor to grow, or just chop tiny parts off it. Either you deal with it or let it consume you. The Tea Party movement is just the rationalization of that fact, after years of denial the populace is finally accepting the situation and urgently want it dealt with.
Hearing McCain complain about peoples actions inadvertently re-electing Obama is just hilarious. After his amazing run fro
We have to deal with it fast, but if you deal with it the TEA party way, what we'll end up is exactly what the US founding fathers rebelled against: A thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath them to shove around as they deem fit. This is essentially what you end up with if your solution is to reduce tax to next to nothing and thus take away the government's ability to actually govern. If you want that, ok. But unless you are one of the thin layer, I definitely doubt that you really want
So you're saying that the US founding fathers - all well-educated and almost all well-heeled, many slave owners - in establishing laws that were significantly preferential to land-owners, were all the time rebelling against a thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath" ?!?
When you said "US founding fathers" did you actually mean "USSR founding fathers"?
Let's stop the thread here. The USSR founding fathers were hiding behind a veneer of support for the working class, while themselves being rich aristocracy who liked their power and opulence. That wasn't communism, it was fascism parading as communism.
Smeagol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:0)
When our economy is plagued by the cancer of debt then compromise is not the best idea. Lets wait a few more years for the tumor to grow, or just chop tiny parts off it. Either you deal with it or let it consume you. The Tea Party movement is just the rationalization of that fact, after years of denial the populace is finally accepting the situation and urgently want it dealt with.
Hearing McCain complain about peoples actions inadvertently re-electing Obama is just hilarious. After his amazing run fro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have to deal with it fast, but if you deal with it the TEA party way, what we'll end up is exactly what the US founding fathers rebelled against: A thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath them to shove around as they deem fit. This is essentially what you end up with if your solution is to reduce tax to next to nothing and thus take away the government's ability to actually govern. If you want that, ok. But unless you are one of the thin layer, I definitely doubt that you really want
Re:Smeagol (Score:2)
So you're saying that the US founding fathers - all well-educated and almost all well-heeled, many slave owners - in establishing laws that were significantly preferential to land-owners, were all the time rebelling against a thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath" ?!?
When you said "US founding fathers" did you actually mean "USSR founding fathers"?
Re: (Score:2)