Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 2 of 16
So how many of those same people would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?
It persistently amuses me how anti those war most Americans are now, but a few years ago if you dared voice opposition, you were branded as a traitor and anti American.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
It's about being anti-government while happily using everything the government provides...
Being anti-government/anti-taxation doesn't mean you refuse to use government services. It means you want to stop being forced to buy govt services, and IF or WHEN you are free from such force, you will happily stop using said services.
You may want to vote against mandatory purchase of car insurance, for example. It doesn't mean that while you're being forced to buy it, you won't submit a claim if you get into a car wreck. You're paying the premiums; you have every right to use what you're paying for.
-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"
What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?
Does the Tea Party support a totally user pays system for all government services? If you pay taxes, you ear mark what you want them used for?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Those questions require thought- Tea Peeps aren't big on that.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So how many of those same people would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?
It persistently amuses me how anti those war most Americans are now, but a few years ago if you dared voice opposition, you were branded as a traitor and anti American.
Recent polling of Tea Party attendees shows that 76% of them identified as Republicans prior to 2008, and 52% of them have a favorable view of Dubya Bush. If that's any indication, they seem like they'd have been plenty happy with both wars.
I've yet to converse with a single Tea Partier (Tea Partyite?), here or anywhere else, who'll flat out say that our military should be SMALLER, or that we should decrease defense spending in any way whatsoever.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
It's about being anti-government while happily using everything the government provides...
Being anti-government/anti-taxation doesn't mean you refuse to use government services. It means you want to stop being forced to buy govt services, and IF or WHEN you are free from such force, you will happily stop using said services.
You may want to vote against mandatory purchase of car insurance, for example. It doesn't mean that while you're being forced to buy it, you won't submit a claim if you get into a car wreck. You're paying the premiums; you have every right to use what you're paying for.
-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"
What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?
Does the Tea Party support a totally user pays system for all government services? If you pay taxes, you ear mark what you want them used for?
And ya know, I think I'm going to beat Frem to the punch here, and he might chide me for it (but I think he'll agree with the thought)...
That's a big part of the thinking behind WHY we should de-escalate military spending. There seems to be an awful lot of "Gee, we GOT all this whiz-bang weaponry, why don't we go find someone to use it on?" thinking going on in the Pentagon. Maybe they wouldn't be so goddamned gung-ho to go a-crusading if they didn't have all the latest goodies they were itching to try out.
So maybe if we didn't spend quite so much on their new toys, we'd be a little less likely to feel like we needed to use 'em or lose 'em.
And hell freakin' yeah, I'd LOVE to see a heirarchical menu of expenditures that we could vote on. Wouldn't that be somethin'?
Never happen, though. The very last thing the military-industrial complex wants is the peons telling 'em how much money they get to take from us!
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:52% of Americans need more powerful meds, it seems.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
52% of them have a favorable view of Dubya Bush.
Or LESS powerful.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It puzzles me what people get outraged over - and not outraged over.
Funding for healthcare, with the view to providing an efficient healthcare service available to all citizens - OUTRAGE.
A pointless war entered into on false premises, and which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands - NO OUTRAGE.
Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources - OUTRAGE
90% of earths resources owned by 10% of population - NO OUTRAGE
And the beat goes on, la di da di da.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?
Does the Tea Party support a totally user pays system for all government services? If you pay taxes, you ear mark what you want them used for?
I can't speak for the Tea Party, as I am not a member. However, I am anarcho-libertarian and anti-taxation, so I can share my personal views for what it's worth.
I don't think anyone should be forced to fund anything they don't want to fund. It is not just restricted to pacifists, people who don't own cars, and people who don't have children. Warmongers, people with 15 cars, and people with 15 children should share the same right.
I don't think anyone should be forced to buy anything they don't want, anymore than anyone should be forced to marry anybody they don't want.
-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've yet to converse with a single Tea Partier (Tea Partyite?), here or anywhere else, who'll flat out say that our military should be SMALLER, or that we should decrease defense spending in any way whatsoever.
Plenty of libertarians, including myself, will tell you that happily.
Ron Paul, who is very popular with Tea Partiers, says that incessantly. That should mean something.
I've heard rumors through CodePink that Sheriff Richard Mack, a Tea Party leader, opposes military spending as well.
-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, I think you may have hit upon something: You say you're anarcho-libertarian, whereas it would certainly seem - from all the coverage I've seen and the folks I've dealt with - that at least a large part (if not an overwhelming majority) of the Tea Party folks are the right-wing brand of "libertarian". In other words, today's tea partier tends to be yesterday's Republican/neocon.
Yours is a noble goal, but it's been corrupted by the right-wing machine into a beast you'd likely not recognize, and probably wouldn't want to be a part of if you did recognize it.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME