Obama, tyranny, sheeple.
No test. It really doesn’t take that long to read, lets not exaggerate. I posted this in a forum called “Great Debates”. My impression is that this forum is distinctly left of center (not that there is anything wrong with that). I am certainly not a Republican, but I wanted to articulate an intellectual challenge to commonly held notions about the “Tea” party or the opposition. Anyone who feels comfortable calling the grassroots activists uneducated hillbillies and racists with no real ideas should put up or shut up. These views I have articulated are spreading like wildfire throughout the country. My view is, if you cannot persuasively have a debate and debunk these views, you forfeit your right to be critical about Obama’s political foes.
What does that mean? I have thoroughly read Austrian literature and I am convinced that it is superior to Keynesian theories. Many others think the same, that is why it is experiencing a resurgence in popularity.
If you have real criticisms, I can address them.
There, you see, that was almost an OP that people would actually respond to. Writing a wall of random text doesn’t make your argument strong.
If I don’t rebut all of your positions, I can’t attempt to debunk anyone elses? That seems an odd requirement…
You will likely get significantly more traction if you post individual contentions rather than entire dissertations of your current political inclinations. For example, there was a rather lengthy and enlightening (to me at least) thread on Austrian economic theory just a few weeks ago.
Good luck getting much of anyone to slog through all that. Although just skimming shows that it’s libertarian which puts it firmly on the “stupid and evil” end of the political spectrum. Especially with Austrian economics thrown into the mix, which is archaic garbage for reasons that have been detailed in your other threads.
Folks just did this: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=570446&highlight=austrian
Where there are no conversations, just 10-12 page rants exchanged. It’s like Soviet Russia, but without the cool titles. If I have to read all that crap, I want to at least be called a member of the Politburo, or the Supreme Soviet. Is that too much to ask?
There is plenty of good debate that happens here and I think others, even if they disagree with my views, would say I do not shy away from intellectual debate here.
You seem to miss the format of where you are writing. This is a message board. How can people begin to tackle the issues you brought up? There are so many in such a long post it is near impossible. Best anyone can do is pick on a few and chase those down. Someone else may pick other points and so on leading to a mess of a thread that would be impossible to follow.
Try breaking it down into distinct pieces and put those up for debate individually. You claim you want intellectual debate but nearly guaranteed you will not get it with that over-long screed.
Simply too unwieldy to be done well here. One would think that was obvious to an intellectual such as yourself.
The Tea Party is in reaction to the president being black, with him being a democrat second. And dont give me this crap about “i saw a black guy at a rally…”, because one person doesn’t make a race or in this case, one person doesn’t make it not about race.
Our government spent billions running up our debt for the past 8yrs and not a peep from any tea party member. 1 yr into a black president and they wont shut up. And if it was really about fiscal responsiblity then why are so many tea parties behind republicans?? What republican in the last 50yrs have actually been about LESS spending?? Any?
So spare me the long winded and rambling paragraphs and just deal with the real issues.
-
You see, I just don’t believe you on this. I’ve been exposed to the tea baggers when they came to DC, and man, it was whiter than a Nascar crowd.
-
Again, I don’t believe you. The signs I saw, and the conversations I was subjected to when the asswipes invaded my bar focused heavily on Obama.
-
I’d give this more credibility if the same people had given a shit abotu deficits and the war when a white Republican was President. But they weren’t demonstrating in DC then.
The purpose of this thread is not to criticize Obama. The purpose is to critique the ideology of his “Progressive” supporters and their inability to comprehend the growing movement concerned with fiscal restraint and “smaller” government. And also, to show how the Progressive ideology and Utopian notions that characterized the theory that government could provide a “safety net” and take care of everyone is being exposed.
Is Obama responsible for the national debt? Of course not. But it goes to show the exponential increase in public debt. Obama’s solution is simply to spend more money to “prop up” the failing system. The only choices we have are dealing with the pain or replacing this system with something more viable, or hyperinflation.
Believe me, hyperinflation is not something we want to live through. Look up the Weimar Republic and the inflation of Zimbabwe. We want to avoid this fate.
I went to a Teaparty meeting here in Houston. It was in a public, taxpayer built, park downtown but they had erected a cute little fence around the actual meeting site. So I looked in for a while & listened to a few rants.
The rants were mostly anti-immigration, legal & otherwise. The crowd was blindingly white. Quite remarkable in such a diverse city.
I’ll let the Economics Scholars deal with your massive wall of text. In the meantime, please detail your formal education in the subject. Also, summarize your life experience.
Long, long ago I actually debated, in High School. I was shanghaied into it since I was taking Speech & half the girl’s debate team ran off to Greenwich Village to be a Beatnik. I was dreadful; with a better partner, my partner won a bunch of tournaments in later years.
However, I did learn that debates have structure. You make a few points (which we wrote on note cards in those long-ago days). Then there are rebuttals, answering the opposition’s points. And maybe a summary? All with time limits. We did not drag a tome to the front of the room & proceed to orate for hours.
If you want people’s attention (rather than derision) edit your OP’s.
Oh, and as a Texan, I’ve been laughing at The Pauls for a long time. Well, I’ve actually only been laughing at Ron; I thank you for introducing me to the hilarity that is Randall “Rand” Paul.
Funny how libertarians seem to omit Alan Greenspan and his group who actually got in power and blew it all up. Ten years ago they touted him proudly. But he got power and proved how stupid and unworkable it was.
What?
Oh, and since the original thread was aimed at me for some bizarre reason; “Obama loyalist”? Me? I’ve been bashing him from his inauguration on. I’ve never liked him. Nor have a great many people on the left, nor have a great many people who have the opinions on the teabaggers and Republicans that you are arguing against. You don’t need to be an “Obama loyalist” to see those scummy idiots for what they are.
Kafka is kewl, Freud is fun, but my fave is Viennese Vixens in Bondage.
It’s a reference to some independently verifiable source, offered in defense to an implicit charge of asspullery; but that’s not important right now.
See, here’s the problem. You don’t want feedback. You want to lecture.
There are some actual libertarians on this board, and plenty of posters who, like me, lean libertarian. But no one comes here to be lectured.