tea party protesters today called Rep. John Lewis from Georgia who was a hero of the Civil Rights Movement the N word and spit on him...then they called Frank a faggot...

http://politifi.com/news/...10533.html


http://www.kansascity.com...ni_popular

[This message has been edited by howdy (3/20/2010)]

I like tea parties Howdy. Earl Greys, oolong, wild berries. Mmmmmm delicious.

The other Tea Paries can go procreate themselves.

This story confirms two things I've felt fairly certain about since the beginning of the Tea Party Movement:

1) These are people who have the capacity to get very ugly.
2) It is going to get worse (probably much so) before it gets better.

And I hope this story indicates that the third thing I feel fairly certain about will prove true sooner rather than later:

3) The Teabaggers will self-destruct long before they cause any lasting damage to the Nation they purport to "love" so much.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (3/21/2010)]

How about we just be genuine for a moment here.

Most people do not go around calling other people faggots or niggers. Even within the Tea Party, I suspect this is true. Any group has its radicals, and opposing groups will try to use those radicals to discredit the entire group. Some Republicans and Conservatives use Ayers, Wright, and others to attack the Democrats in general, and President Obama specifically. Some Democrats and Liberals are now using what are clearly bad apples to attack the `Tea Party.' We even attach names to the groups to further discredit them, i.e. "Teabaggers." It's childish at best, and discourages meaningful discussion (and progress).

When I look at the Tea Party movement, I see people who are concerned about their personal future. They say they're concerned about the future of their country, but when people say that, I think they usually are concerned for their own well being (which is connected to that of the country). They don't understand the changes that are being proposed/passed, and they feel as if they have no voice or choice in the matter. I guess you could argue that their chance to participate was last November. If that's the case, however, I'd like to believe the same line of reasoning would apply to those who have been dissatisfied with the various policies of previous administrations.

I personally don't have a good grasp on what this health care bill means for me, or the country. I've met a lot of people who are strongly against it, and a lot of people who are strongly for it, but not a single one of them has been able to tell me why, or what it really means. They either believe it will bankrupt the country, or that it will provide a previously unseen level of care for ourselves and our neighbors. Yes, some are in the middle, but they still have not convinced me they know what they're talking about.

I guess I do identify with the 'Tea Party' to some extent. I feel like we are the shuttle Challenger sitting on the launch pad right now. There are a few engineers who feel strongly that our o-rings might not be up to par. The people making the decisions, however, appear to be more interested in meeting deadlines and getting impressive results. There is some risk involved. Maybe we should stand down and check out those o-rings? Or, maybe we should launch and hope for the best?

I agree that nobody really knows what all is contained in the health care bill. I haven't read it, that's for sure -- and my guess is very few people at the Capitol have read it as well.

I think what the debate comes down to in simple terms is this: Do you believe the system can be fixed with a few minor adjustments, or do you believe that the system needs a major overhaul.

Using a car engine as an analogy, sometimes changing the spark plugs and replacing the fuel filter is all it takes. But as I found out with an old Volkswagen I once owned, sometimes a complete overhaul is needed because just fixing one part of the engine only leads to problems in another part - and the process of going thru one repair after another ends up being far more costly in terms of time, treasure and frustration.

With health care, I buy the idea that a piecemeal approach is going to cause a lot more pain and be just as or even more costly over the long haul than a comprehensive approach. For example, I believe that if you want to eliminate the current practice of cancelling or refusing to issue insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, then you have to have a system where everyone (healthy and un-) is insured. I believe that because both sides have said it. And if you have a system where everyone has to buy insurance, then you're going to need a mechanism for those who don't have the means to buy it themselves. I don't see any way to accomplish those things without using a comprehensive "overhaul" approach that requires some level of government involvement.

I understand that those who already have insurance are concerned about losing some benefits - but I am more sympathetic to the needs of other equally hard-working and deserving Americans who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition or because they have a low-wage/no benefit job.

I don't buy the scare tactic about not having a "choice" of doctors. I've had to change doctors so many times because of private insurance issues with "in network" and "out of network" that I am pretty well convinced that the idea of "choice" is illusory in our current system anyway. And I've also had to change doctors due to the physician getting fed up with certain insurance companies - so it appears that the private insurors aren't doing a very good job meeting the doctors needs either. In other words, the system is broken on all sides - so it needs a major fix.

But this thread is about the Tea Party, isn't it - so I'll get back to that.

I agree with you, George K. (long time no hear from, btw). Many of the things the Tea Party stands for are legitimate topics that are long overdue for serious discussion and debate - among those I would count the question of "Is our tax system equitable?" and "Is our federal government assuming too much control of things that should be handled at the state and local level?"

But the Tea Party has attracted (and its leadership even seems to be encouraging) a certain element that can best be described as anarchist in their hatred of government and antediluvian in their attitudes about racial equality. The term "teabagger" as I used it refers folks with these unsavory outlooks and attitudes. And while I hate namecalling, political labels are here to stay whether they be affixed to folks on the left, right or even center of the political divide. I might also point out that the Tea Party members themselves adopted the term "teabaggers" prior to discovering it referred to something most folks probably never imagined (or wanted to, for that matter - just ask Wendy).

Anyway, I'm perplexed by the GOP's desire to annex the Tea Party into the Republican tent. If I was at that table, I'd advocate letting the Tea Party become a magnet for the more extreme anti-government (as opposed to small-government) folks while at the same time finding another organization that would appeal to the Religious Right (who apparently are no longer enamored of the GOP anyway). Then, and only then, will the GOP be free to modernize the Republican Party Platform into something that would appeal to the vast majority of independents and quite a few moderate democrats. By continuing to court the Tea Party, I believe the GOP is creating stress within its own ranks and forcing its moderate members to move over to the "D" side.

And despite my obvious preference for the policies espoused by the Democrats, I fervently believe that our Nation's interests are best served by have two very strong, very sane political parties. Of course, the best way to ensure that evolving is election campaign reform .... but that is another thread, too.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (3/21/2010)]

Interesting. My view of your shuttle analogy: For many flights (years) we have been using o-rings (healthcare system) that have been deteriorating yet we have refused to address the problem. Some of the previous engineers, for whatever reason, still believe that it is still safe to fly despite this knowledge. Others are willing to implement a revised design in hope of fixing the problem. Naturally egos and contracts(lobbyist and campaign contributions) are at stake. Do we fly again in the hope we are lucky again or do we roll up our sleeves and address the problem?

I respectfully disagree Steve-O, but I do see where you're coming from.

The same strategy is being employed by both major parties in our country at the moment. I call that strategy "My dad will beat up your dad." It's ridiculous and belongs only on a playground (I'm not even sure it belongs there, but it's the only place I would hope to find it).

So, playing with analogies.

If our engine needs overhauled, who's doing the overhauling? Is it Pep Boys or is it the mechanic you've known for years? I think it's Pep Boys. And what kind of engine is it? Do we even know how this engine works? If we don't know how it works, or if it just doesn't work, then it's time for a new `type' of engine, and that's what we're really talking about here. We're not overhauling. We're upgrading. It's a different story altogether. We're taking a Chrysler 383 cubic inch engine out and putting in a T73 Zokalwicz with unobtanium bearings and uber-relief wonkerdings. What's a wonkerding? I wish I knew. And, what if we're overhauling our engine when the real problem is in our transmission? Yes, it seems like it should be obvious if the problem is in the transmission, but how many people today even know what a transmission is? We may be overhauling our engine when what we really need is a good shift kit. Perhaps people aren't involved enough with our politics and each other to qualify as mechanics (and thus declare an overhaul as the cure?)

For me to answer your first question (do I believe the system needs an overhaul or a tune-up) I'd have to first understand the system. I think it's irresponsible to say that since I don't understand the system, an overhaul is the best bet. Frankly, I'm not even sure there is a "system" as I understand the term. I'm not even convinced that the new wonkerding being offered to me qualifies as a system. I really think that what's going on right now is a case of treating the symptom rather than the cause. We're putting a band-aid on when we should have had gloves on to begin with.

I disagree with the characterization of loss of choice as a scare tactic. It's a scare tactic if it's artificial, but I think people are actually concerned. They don't understand what's happening. It's happening too fast to get a handle on, and that worries them (and me). If it's happening, the employment of a scare tactic is only happening because it's being allowed to by the people sponsoring the change. If they knew what they were changing, they would be able to easily refute the scare tactics. The reality is, people are just buying the brand name (Pep Boys).

Yes, the Tea Party has attracted a bad element, and it would be in their best interest to denounce that forcefully and immediately. Liberal movements do the same, and should denounce them as well. Unfortunately there's an ugly truth here: If you have ugly liberal elements, you don't lose conservative votes (you weren't getting them to begin with), but you gain radical liberal votes, and if you have ugly conservative elements, you don't lose liberal votes, but you gain radical conservative votes.. I think the net gain argues for accepting these radicals.

I'm perplexed too Steve. I honestly don't think there's a solution. The best one I can come up with is this: If you have a desire to be a politician, you should not be allowed to be a politician. The problems with that are obvious, but I think it's the only way I would trust someone in public office.

Bruce:

I'm picking up what you're putting down. My question is (in sticking with the engineering analogy), what do we do in the interim? Or, more accurately, do you feel like we've rolled our sleeves up and addressed the problem? I don't. Or, at least not in a systematic way. I feel like we threw a bunch of parts in a box, shook it up, and are hoping that when we hit the "on" switch wonderful things happen. I guess the probability of `wonderfulness' is dependent on the number of moving parts.. I'm not happy with the odds.

My answer is this: We all agree the system is jacked up, agree not to change anything until we've made an honest and good faith effort to understand how it's jacked up and what we can do to fix it. Unfortunately, that will never work.

The other option is to risk a launch. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then everything is reduced to rubble, and we can start fresh. There is value to that, but I see suffering along the way.

I'm still not so sure I understand the Tea Party, and I haven't read the megaposts above, but my input on this is that if you go to any protest and take a picture of the craziest person there, you can make any protest look bad. People who organize protests don't have any control over who shows up or what they do while there, and protests draw crazies like a dead cow draws flies.

I went to a protest against the Iraq war in San Francisco, mostly just to observe, but I was pretty shocked at some of the people there. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting someone that thought the Jews controlled the government and George Bush reported directly to Israel. In fact the anti-Israel signs were almost as common as the anti-war signs. Funny how none of those make it into the SF Chronicle.

The point is that while going to a protest and taping people saying ridiculous things is a good way to make an episode of the daily show, it is not a good way for a reasonable person to form an opinion on a movement.

I'm perplexed too Steve. I honestly don't think there's a solution. The best one I can come up with is this: If you have a desire to be a politician, you should not be allowed to be a politician. The problems with that are obvious, but I think it's the only way I would trust someone in public office.

I'm definitely on the same page as you on this one, George. In fact, I've long said that we should only draft ONE member of our armed forces - The Commander-in-Chief - because anyone with the ambition to aspire to that office is not worthy of it.

The point is that while going to a protest and taping people saying ridiculous things is a good way to make an episode of the daily show, it is not a good way for a reasonable person to form an opinion on a movement.

Good point, Levi. And my complimentary point would be that holding protests and encouraging people to say ridiculous things (e.g.; HIRING Sarah Palin as your keynote speaker) is not a good way to form a movement, let alone create a viable and serious political party.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (3/21/2010)]

of course...if you don't like it, leave it. teabagger and gentile alike. Isn't that what I have heard from the GOP all my life? The only thing that the Obama administration did wrong is to think that they should have bipartisan support in the first place on the health care bill. I don't give a rat's ass if the republicans are unhappy. So what? Elections have consequences. Get 'er done Obama!

You should try tea bags Howdy, it would save you a lot of "pot stirring".

The tea baggers do seem to be the wing nuts of the world. Racist, ignorant and just plain crazy in some cases. If you truly feel the government needs reform, these are NOT the folks you want spreading the message because they come across as whack jobs.

Social discourse on serious issues is needed. Not racial epithets and general hysterics and anti-everything rhetoric.

Start a SERIOUS, INTELLIGENT movement for government reform and I'm there. Gather a bunch of loonies and I'm out of town.

George K: Earlier I mentioned what I agreed with you on. As I'm sure you would expect, there were a few things you stated that I either need to clarify my position on or state why I disagree with you.

If our engine needs overhauled, who's doing the overhauling? Is it Pep Boys or is it the mechanic you've known for years? I think it's Pep Boys.

I think the folks who are proposing the "overhaul" are very experienced health care mechanics who have been studying the problem for many years, and those who are advocating a "band aid" approach are those who have been making money hand over fist under the current sytem at the expense of people the "system" should be serving - that is, sick people.

I think it's irresponsible to say that since I don't understand the system, an overhaul is the best bet.

I never said I didn't understand the system. I've been dealing with the system for over 30 years in a variety of roles: as a patient with employer provided health care, as an individual with insurance I purchased myself, as a social worker who witnessed firsthand hard working people who faced incredibly hard decisions because they couldn't afford health insurance (e.g., a single mother with a sickly child who had to stay on welfare/medicaid (which she hated) because the jobs she qualified for didn't provide health insurance).

What I said was, I haven't read the bill. I'm betting only a handful of people actually have. I don't know if the solutions in the bill will work exactly as promised. In fact, I'm sure some of them won't. But I have faith that it will be a huge improvement over the current system, and that we'll have time to work out any problems as they come up. One thing I'm sure of - we'll NEVER solve the problem if we wait until someone - anyone - can state that they understand the health care system 100% and can promise that the proposed solution will truly solve all the problems.

Besides, since when have we Americans waited for the "sure thing" before we took action. Our national success is based on the courage to experiment - to take a leap of faith. Rarely has anything gone smoothly from square one, but equally rarely have things proven a total disaster -- with the exceptions of Korea (D), Vietnam (R/D) and the Iraq War (R). In fact, I can't think of any domestic programs that have wreaked the kind of havoc the naysayers of the time predicted, and I'm willing to bet that the same will be true of the current health insurance overhaul naysayers.

I disagree with the characterization of loss of choice as a scare tactic. It's a scare tactic if it's artificial, but I think people are actually concerned.

I think the concerns (there are many) are real, and they need to be addressed as much as possible now, and certainly throughout the entire implementation process. But scare tactics are rampant (loss of choice, doctors leaving the profession by the thousands, financial calamity, etc.) are being artificially connected to the health bill. We already face those problems with the health insurance system we have. And don't even get me started on Palin's death squad red herring...

Unfortunately there's an ugly truth here: If you have ugly liberal elements, you don't lose conservative votes (you weren't getting them to begin with), but you gain radical liberal votes, and if you have ugly conservative elements, you don't lose liberal votes, but you gain radical conservative votes.. I think the net gain argues for accepting these radicals.

Well, there's no way to say who's right and who's wrong on this one. My opinion is based on the belief that BOTH the Rs and Ds have been playing to the more extreme elements of their respective parties (and mislabeling as the party's "base") for decades now, mainly because those extreme factions (also known as one-issue voters) can be easily mobilized to vote. The result is the vast majority of Americans who have more moderate views are left behind with no party. My hope is the party that identifies THAT group as its base will eventually come out ahead. If neither the Rs or the Ds answer that call, then maybe a new party - the "Sanity Party" perhaps? - will be formed.

Well stated Steve, and I completely agree with you!! I, no longer, identify with either party...

Oops -- I'm gonna argue with myself here.

In fact, I can't think of any domestic programs that have wreaked the kind of havoc the naysayers of the time predicted, and I'm willing to bet that the same will be true of the current health insurance overhaul naysayers.

Steve, you're an idiot if you wouldn't classify the Great Depression and the Wall St. Bailout as wreaking domestic havoc. And the deregulation of utilities is probably up there as well, especially for the ratepayers/taxpayers of California and the former stockholders of Montana Power. THINK before you type, boy!

Using a car engine as an analogy, sometimes changing the spark plugs and replacing the fuel filter is all it takes. But as I found out with an old Volkswagen I once owned, sometimes a complete overhaul is needed because just fixing one part of the engine only leads to problems in another part - and the process of going thru one repair after another ends up being far more costly in terms of time, treasure and frustration.

I like your analogy, Steve. Only problem is your mechanic is a trial lawyer. And his parts manager just ripped all those 'new' parts out of another old VW on blocks behind the shop.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...r_embedded

Interesting. Not seeing the kind of harassment they claimed occurred. Of course we all know a politician would never make something like that up!