Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

On Tea Parties and Republicans

12K views 298 replies 20 participants last post by  bryanc 
#1 ·
Neil MacDonald is on a roll lately...

That sort of language, of course, just gets the Tea Partiers angrier. And when they are angry, they frighten the Republican elite, including, apparently, Frum's boss at AEI.

With their confusingly contradictory demands, their goon tactics, and their ability to organize and channel spluttering visceral fury, they are truly the loose cannon of American politics, endangering any conservative politician who doesn't either ride with them or hide from them.

During the health-care vote last week, Tea Partiers behaved like the snarling white mobs that lined the streets of Selma, Alabama, 46 years ago.

They surrounded representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver, both civil rights legends from that era, as they entered the House to vote.

One protester spat in Lewis's face. Another called Cleaver a "******." This, in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol in 2010.

When Barney Frank, the openly gay congressman from Massachusetts, arrived on the Hill with his partner, he was mobbed, too. "******," someone yelled.

Inside the House, one protester made it into the public gallery where he began screaming curses and insults. Republican lawmakers applauded him, even as police struggled to haul him away.

There were several explanations put forward for the behaviour, but Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck, a Tea Party hero, provided the richest one: The Democratic lawmakers, he said, had deliberately provoked the crowd by walking around the grounds of the legislature in which they serve.
(CBC)
 
#260 ·
Not only that. Nowhere does the article appear to address, let alone support the poster's original assertion: "...religious (i.e. anti-science and more precisely anti-evolution)..." Rather, it highlights a growing disgust with government intervention.

I can only conclude that it is a leap made in the poster's mind: that if you are vehemently anti-government, you must be anti-science, etc.
 
#261 ·
I agree. There's this notion that somehow a faith in big government is somehow a hallmark of enlightenment. pretty funny to hear the libs in the U.S. now claiming that the Tea Party movement is "seditious" because it is anti-government. It's clearly that group who doesn't understand the foundations and nature of American freedom--and it isn't "Be happy with what government gives you."
 
#271 ·
She wears the mantle of the Tea Party well...

Hegemoron
Sarah Palin's ignorant imperialism.

Sarah Palin thinks Barack Obama is a wimp. She's been going around to Tea Party rallies, invoking the spirit of revolutionary Boston and castigating Obama for failing to exalt American power and punish our adversaries. She seems blissfully unaware that the imperial arrogance she's preaching isn't how the American founders behaved. It's how the British behaved, and why they lost. Palin represents everything the original Tea Party was against.
(Slate.com)
 
#272 · (Edited)
Obama may be a wimp, but the Tea Party movement has little to say about international relations and much to say about domestic affairs.

Sarah Palin's speech is just that--a stump speech made at a Tea Party rally, not a policy statement by Tea Party activists.

William Saletan's attempt to draw parallels to the original Tea Party--which involved Tea, not the acronym for "Taxed Enough Already"--isn't really apt at all. It fails further by making Palin and her presidential aspirations his focus, since the Tea Party movement hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate at all.
 
#295 ·
#296 · (Edited)
In fact they're largely correct, except for the ringers who couldn't express themselves well.

You wanted to put a 12 minute video on as your evidence? Do a little work and explain which points you disagree with.

Although I don't usually stoop to this sort of "those folks are so stupid" tactic, here are four randomly selected YouTube videos hilighting pro-Democrat voters.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
 
#297 ·
Record Number of Stealth Creationism Bills Introduced in 2011

The latest is Texas’ HB 2454, which would prohibit an institution of higher learning from "discrimination related to research related into intelligent design."

“PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.”

What makes this bill such a precious gem is that it relies on creationists’ persecution complex and oft-repeated talking point that the science community discriminates against ID research. But as we all know, there is no such thing as ID research, which has not yet produced one single legitimate peer reviewed paper. But that doesn’t keep its proponents and gullible lawmakers from whining that science is mean to them.
(Religion Dispatches)
 
#298 ·
So essentially, what you appear to be saying is that it would be fine to discriminate against students or faculty if they had ever examined the topic of intelligent design. That's pretty illiberal of you CB. This is the only thing the proposed bill you've shown addresses.
 
#299 ·
So essentially, what you appear to be saying is that it would be fine to discriminate against students or faculty if they had ever examined the topic of intelligent design.
No, but it should be perfectly acceptable to discriminate against researchers or students who consistently demonstrate that they don't understand what science is and is not. Depending on the way it's presented, ID either makes no testable hypotheses and therefore is not science, or it does make testable hypotheses, which have been tested and found to be false, in which case it's just wrong.

Either way, it's obviously a waste of money to fund students or researchers who pursue ID as if it were a viable scientific theory. What's obscene here is that legislators, who clearly have a religious/political agenda, are trying to dictate the science by directing the funding. :ptptptptp

The only upside to this is that it's pretty much restricted to the U.S. and Iran.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top