Obamacare Poll II
Poll
 | 13 votes (48.14%) | ||
| | 14 votes (51.85%) |
27 members have voted
Quote: rxwine
Deregulation, environmental protection, worker's rights, equal rights are completely unnecessary to a platform of hard work and rewards which you really could sell as a positive attribute TO EVERYONE. But whatever. It's a wonder you get as many votes as you do.
We do sell it as a positive attribute to everyone, but there is this 47% that refuse to buy the hard word and self-support platform. Not to worry, when things collapse eventually things will sort them out. Already most of them can't last a week on their own.
The head of CGI in the U.S., who appeared last week at the Congressional hearing, is a classmate and longtime associate of FLOTUS. CGI, by the way, was also running botched-up assistance after superstorm Sandy.Quote: thecesspitI'm not convince they had a competent quality manager for the project. Or even if they had one at all.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe do sell it as a positive attribute to everyone, but there is this 47% that refuse to buy the hard word and self-support platform. Not to worry, when things collapse eventually things will sort them out. Already most of them can't last a week on their own.
Do you really believe 47% don't believe in hard work and self-support?
"It’s also ironic, from a policy standpoint, that Republicans like Mitt Romney have adopted the 47 percent as a talking point to appeal to their conservative base. A huge reason that so few people pay no federal income taxes is because Republicans over the years expanded the tax breaks for the working poor and for families with children. These tax breaks, in turn, reduced families’ tax bills, sometimes to the point where they didn’t pay anything to the federal government at all."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/who-are-the-47-percent-20120918
Part of the reason so many people don't pay income taxes (though they might pay withholding and other taxes) is because they don't make enough to owe taxes. Are some of them lazy bums who don't want to bother doing anything resembling work? Sure. Some of them are old and retired. Some of them work their asses off and don't make enough money to end up paying taxes.
...and some of them are even Conservatives but we toss them under the bus using this 47% thing.
Why don't you focus on the things that we need to change and not some percentage that does nothing to advance the ball?
(I know the National Journal tends to lean liberal; their are plenty of other sources that show the whole 47% thing is not a good argument for the conservative cause)
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe head of CGI in the U.S., who appeared last week at the Congressional hearing, is a classmate and longtime associate of FLOTUS. CGI, by the way, was also running botched-up assistance after superstorm Sandy.
There is a story in this and how the contracts were awarded, but it will be swept under the rug.
Soon, they will find a way to say it was Bush's fault. maybe they have already.
Actually, I just feel sorry for you.Quote: AZDuffmanI have no need for you to feel sorry for me, so please either give an example of union pickets being arrested for "slight violations" and for a bonus show where a GOP politician backed it up. Or you can man up and explain that you misspoke.
Quote: RonCDo you really believe 47% don't believe in hard work and self-support?
Yes, I believe they do not and prefer a socialized system to a capitalist one.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to the homonyms you mentioned, I don't see what it matters. Educated people know what words mean.
Let's just leave this here.
Quote: RonCDo you really believe 47% don't believe in hard work and self-support?
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, I believe they do not and prefer a socialized system to a capitalist one.
That would mean that conservatives have very little chance of winning on the large scale. If 47% of the population is in the bag for the liberals, they only need to convince 4% to ride along and they win.
That is an oversimplification, but writing off 47% of the electorate by insulting them as lazy and stupid doesn't seem to be the path to winning or changing anything...
Quote: RonCThat would mean that conservatives have very little chance of winning on the large scale. If 47% of the population is in the bag for the liberals, they only need to convince 4% to ride along and they win.
Which is the problem. More and more people get hooked on various programs then vote to keep them. Anyone who thinks it hasn't been by design is crazy.
Quote:That is an oversimplification, but writing off 47% of the electorate by insulting them as lazy and stupid doesn't seem to be the path to winning or changing anything...
As is insulting achievers by saying, "you didn't built that, someone else did," "we need to spread the wealth around," and comments about anyone who achieves is somehow greedy and selfish. But it is easier to loot money from the achievers and give it away than to create more achievers.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhich is the problem. More and more people get hooked on various programs then vote to keep them. Anyone who thinks it hasn't been by design is crazy.
Of course there is a group of people who want to buy votes for life by giving more entitlements than are absolutely necessary. My only point is that the number doing that is most certainly not 47%. By using that number, you intentionally insult some people who are on your side. That makes them reconsider their position because they think that you are not for them at that point.
Don't use numbers like that one that lump good people with bad, use numbers of the actual mooches.
You are not going to convince a 74 year old widow that contributed to social security for 46 years (and had a husband that did, too) that they are "living on the government dole" when they get some money back in the form of a monthly social security check. Should that program be changed? Of course!! I just don't think lumping those folks in with plain old losers does anything to help our cause.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs is insulting achievers by saying, "you didn't built that, someone else did," "we need to spread the wealth around," and comments about anyone who achieves is somehow greedy and selfish. But it is easier to loot money from the achievers and give it away than to create more achievers.
Exactly the point I am trying to make--those things insult people who lean liberal, too. There are plenty of hard-working, contributing members of society who are a little left of center but also believe in hard work and personal responsibility. Those kind of comments help drive them away from their leanings towards more conservative positions.
It is easy for the give away people to say they will give more away. I get it. Conservatives have to be smart, persistent, caring, and passionate and win people over with good arguments. Frustrating? Hell yes!! The freebie folks won't listen no matter what you say, they want more stuff. We have to get to the people that realize they are paying for that stuff.
Quote: RonCOf course there is a group of people who want to buy votes for life by giving more entitlements than are absolutely necessary. My only point is that the number doing that is most certainly not 47%. By using that number, you intentionally insult some people who are on your side. That makes them reconsider their position because they think that you are not for them at that point.
The 47% comment Mr Romney made was never intended to mean 47% on the dole but that 47% of people will vote liberal no matter what. For example, until some major sea change happens blacks are going to vote 90-95% Democrat no matter what. For a GOP candidate to even try to reach out to them is a complete waste of time. If a GOP candidate was smart he would decline the customary NAACP speaking invitation with a public message, "Sorry, as a liberal special-interest group I do not feel my time would be well spent addressing your members." And then stick to the statement the whole way. If they did that then the Democrat candidate and the NAACP would instantly be on defense. But it never happens, and the "reach out" thing is done.
When is the last time a liberal "reached out" to the NRA?
It involves the very top of at least two nations:Quote: RonCThere is a story in this and how the contracts were awarded, but it will be swept under the rug. Soon, they will find a way to say it was Bush's fault. maybe they have already.
PR Newswire: news distribution, targeting and monitoring MONTREAL, July 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - CGI Group Inc. (TSX: GIB.A; NYSE: GIB), a leading provider of information technology and business process services, announced today that effective September 30, 2010, Mr. David L. Johnston will resign from the CGI Board of Directors as a result of his being appointed Canada's Governor General Designate. . . . When David joined our Board of Directors in 1995, CGI's revenue was $97 million with 1,200 professionals. Today, CGI employs 26,000 professionals and its revenue is approximately $3.8 billion."
Mr. Johnston has served on the CGI Board of Directors since 1995, acting as its Lead Director from 1998 to 2003. He also served as Chair of the Human Resources Committee from 1998 to 2009, and is currently the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee.
Founded in 1976, CGI Group Inc. is one of the largest independent information technology and business process services firms in the world. CGI and its affiliated companies employ approximately 26,000 professionals. CGI provides end-to-end IT and business process services to clients worldwide from offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific, as well as from centers of excellence in North America, Europe and India. As of March 31, 2010, CGI's order backlog was $11.4 billion.
Maybe the US needs a true three party system, with Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Partiers. It certainly seems that way. Because there is only a small but very vocal minority of tea-partiers in America, while there are a large number of Democrats and middle of the road Republicans. It's fairly early in the election cycle, but now is the time for the Republicans and the Tea-Partiers to split (let's call the Tea-Partiers the Reform party) and redo the way government works in Washingon.
It seems that from the Tea Party point of view, mainstream republicans are just short of liberals, while most Democrats view the "Reform" party as unworkable, never changing, far-righters.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe 47% comment Mr Romney made was never intended to mean 47% on the dole but that 47% of people will vote liberal no matter what.
The information posted at this link seems to say conservatives may be a larger group than liberals:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx
Quote: AZDuffmanFor example, until some major sea change happens blacks are going to vote 90-95% Democrat no matter what. For a GOP candidate to even try to reach out to them is a complete waste of time. If a GOP candidate was smart he would decline the customary NAACP speaking invitation with a public message, "Sorry, as a liberal special-interest group I do not feel my time would be well spent addressing your members." And then stick to the statement the whole way. If they did that then the Democrat candidate and the NAACP would instantly be on defense. But it never happens, and the "reach out" thing is done.
That would be fine with me because it is not some randomly used percentage--it is a statement of fact that can't be torn apart as the 47% can.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen is the last time a liberal "reached out" to the NRA?
Either side still has to convince moderates/independents to swing their way. This does require reaching out.
Or...conservatives can just not bother to try and reach out and hope that they win.
Quote: RonCThe information posted at this link seems to say conservatives may be a larger group than liberals:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx
Seen that many times, yet we are told we need to "nominate moderates" which I do not get.
Quote:Either side still has to convince moderates/independents to swing their way. This does require reaching out.
Or...conservatives can just not bother to try and reach out and hope that they win.
Right, but the NAACP is neither moderate nor independent. The other thing is, there are few moderates/independents that are not low-information voters in the first place. And they kind of vote for "who is cool" at the moment.
I see it as about 40% of the population is conservative and knows what they believe. On the other side, 20% are "committed liberals" who understand what liberalism is and like it; 10% are the portion of blacks who will always vote Democrat; 10% are union members who think voting Democrat supports labor, and 10% are in some other group who has a "you support my cause and I will support yours" narrow-cast votes. Combined they get about 45% since some of the aforementioned are in more than one group.
Most of the remainder are just uninvolved. But the uninvolved folks shrink all the time. They get swayed by one thing or another. The best hope right now is they see Obamacare for the war on the middle class that it is.
Quote: boymimbo
It seems that from the Tea Party point of view, mainstream republicans are just short of liberals, while most Democrats view the "Reform" party as unworkable, never changing, far-righters.
RINOs like John McCain are just short of Democrats.
The problem with the American Public is they complain no matter what happens. If you have two similar candidates who have a "love-in" debate where neither disagrees they cry that there is no real choice. Put up some real choice, like the Tea Party vs Obama and they cry "everyone is so extreme!"
I place the blame at the feminization of the culture. If you state your beliefs and are not afraid of them you are "mean and intolerant." We need to get back to when real men didn't care about nuance.
I do agree that bringing up the 47% is useless from a political standpoint. But, realistically speaking, Democrats DO have 47% of the vote locked up. Just look at the last election. Considering the state of the country in 2008, there's no way Obama should have won. But he did. You can even witness what's going on today. 73% of the people say that the country is on the "wrong track", yet they don't hold Obama responsible. And he's been the guy in charge for the past 5 freakin years!!!! His approval rating today is even in the upper 40's!! Talk about insanity.Quote: RonCOf course there is a group of people who want to buy votes for life by giving more entitlements than are absolutely necessary. My only point is that the number doing that is most certainly not 47%. By using that number, you intentionally insult some people who are on your side. That makes them reconsider their position because they think that you are not for them at that point.
Don't use numbers like that one that lump good people with bad, use numbers of the actual mooches.
You can even look at forecasts for 2016. Most analysts (on both sides) agree that Democrats start with 200-220 electoral votes in the bag (which is 50-70 votes short of winning!).
At this point—and believe me, I hate sounding like a pessimist—NOTHING will convince that 74-year-old widow. George W. Bush tried tackling SS in 2005 after winning a majority months earlier, and he got creamed for it.Quote: RonCYou are not going to convince a 74 year old widow that contributed to social security for 46 years (and had a husband that did, too) that they are "living on the government dole" when they get some money back in the form of a monthly social security check. Should that program be changed? Of course!! I just don't think lumping those folks in with plain old losers does anything to help our cause.
Unfortunately, those people never realize it until it's waaaaaaay too late.Quote: RonCWe have to get to the people that realize they are paying for that stuff.
You've been watching too much MS-DNC. FYI, the number of Tea Party members in the US dwarfs the number of gay people (vocal minority???), yet you'd never know by reading the New Yuck Times or watching MS-DNC.Quote: boymimboBecause there is only a small but very vocal minority of tea-partiers in America
TRANSLATION: People might consider voting for Republicans if they behaved more like Democrats.Quote: boymimboActually, there is a probably a substantial number of undecideds and a large numbers of Democrats who would vote Republicans, but the far right keep digging a hole...
Quote: Beethoven9thYou've been watching too much MS-DNC. FYI, the number of Tea Party members in the US dwarfs the number of gay people (vocal minority???), yet you'd never know by reading the New Yuck Times or watching MS-DNC.
I am not sure thats true. Show your working, but I expect the number of out gay people is ten times higher than active Tea Party members. I have seen a figure of 670,000 party supporters quoted. But I doubt that is very accurat, but also dont think membership is in the low millions based on the number of active chapters.
The tea party is a vocal minority. Active and poltically charged. Like many vocal minorities, and lets face it, thats often what affects change, across the spectrum, as the majorities tend not to be as vocal, politically charged. You cant easily ignore vocal minorities.... they often affect the leanings of the silent majorities... and the elected.
Quote: thecesspitI am not sure thats true. Show your working, but I expect the number of out gay people is ten times higher than active Tea Party members. I have seen a figure of 670,000 party supporters quoted. But I doubt that is very accurat, but also dont think membership is in the low millions based on the number of active chapters.
When I used the word 'members' I meant people who support the Tea Party since it's not an actual political party. For example, I consider myself a part of the Tea Party, yet I've never been to an actual Tea Party event. As for gays, most pollsters put gays at about 3%+ of the population. Supporters of the Tea Party are much greater in number.
Quote: thecesspitI am not sure thats true. Show your working, but I expect the number of out gay people is ten times higher than active Tea Party members. I have seen a figure of 670,000 party supporters quoted. But I doubt that is very accurat, but also dont think membership is in the low millions based on the number of active chapters.
Gays are about 1-1.5% of the population. Tea Party support numbers I have seen range 15-20%. Even at the low-end you have it flip-flopped.
Quote:The tea party is a vocal minority. Active and poltically charged. Like many vocal minorities, and lets face it, thats often what affects change, across the spectrum, as the majorities tend not to be as vocal, politically charged. You cant easily ignore vocal minorities.... they often affect the leanings of the silent majorities... and the elected.
Just look at how the 1% gay population has agitated for the changes they demand. A difference of course is there is a high concentration of gays in entertainment, which allows for propaganda in TV and film. This drives acceptance over time.
Quote: AZDuffmanGays are about 1-1.5% of the population. Tea Party support numbers I have seen range 15-20%. Even at the low-end you have it flip-flopped.
Just look at how the 1% gay population has agitated for the changes they demand. A difference of course is there is a high concentration of gays in entertainment, which allows for propaganda in TV and film. This drives acceptance over time.
Heres the flaw in your logic, Its over 50 per cent that is demanding change, not 1 per cent. I am not gay but I am part of the over 50 per cent demanding change. Does the tea party have over 50 per cent support, of course not, but gays do. Sorry AZ, you live in a democracy.
This is the greatest country on the planet due to democracy. GO USA.
Quote: Beethoven9thWhen I used the word 'members' I meant people who support the Tea Party since it's not an actual political party. For example, I consider myself a part of the Tea Party, yet I've never been to an actual Tea Party event. As for gays, most pollsters put gays at about 3%+ of the population. Supporters of the Tea Party are much greater in number.
4.5 Million are gay or lesbian in the US. But the support of their causes is bigger than that.
Membership and Support are different things. Careful how you use the words, Beethoven.
I would suggest you go to a Tea Party event sometime and become a member.
EDIT : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_from_America
Interesting document. I suggest 2 (cap and trade) and 7 (repeal of Obamacare) are too specific for a basis of an ideological movement, and 5 (blue ribbon task force) needs to have teeth. 2 and 7 could easily be replace with a more generic version of the same to make a statement of what you stand for, and the current missions in them be active policies to pursue to enable the realization of a ban on Cap and Trade, and a change to a truly private healthcare system.
The danger with 5 is off course creating a government department of Adminstrative Affairs :)
Quote: terapinedSorry AZ, you live in a democracy.
No, I live in the USA which is a Republic. Democracy is when the fox, wolf, and lamb vote on what they have for dinner.
As to gays, they only recently approached 50% support and some part of that is people giving in same as they do to a child throwing a hissy-fit when they want a candy-bar at the grocery check-out. Otherwise they mostly do not care.
As to not supporting the Tea Party, I am willing to listen to why anyone does not support the Constitution and self-reliance and instead prefers a socialist system. But they never say why they prefer the socialist system, nor even admit that they do. They generally just engage in name-calling.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou've been watching too much MS-DNC. FYI, the number of Tea Party members in the US dwarfs the number of gay people (vocal minority???), yet you'd never know by reading the New Yuck Times or watching MS-DNC.
TRANSLATION: People might consider voting for Republicans if they behaved more like Democrats.
I don't get MSNBC on my cable box. I don't get FoxNews either. I don't read the New York Times either. I have common sense.
Quote: boymimboGays/Lesbians are actually about 10% of the population. Where do you get 1.5% from, the 53%?
I fear you are wrong on that... the 1 in 10 is an often misquoted number. 1 In 66 was quoted for the UK recently. The number of non-out LG people may be higher, but that's a guessing game.
Quote: boymimboGays/Lesbians are actually about 10% of the population. Where do you get 1.5% from, the 53%?
It has long been quoted as 1-1.5%. The 10% figure was quoted in one study that had very broad questions and thus over-counts the gay population. I have heard the same nonsense figure thrown around since I heard it in college. Sorry, 10% is not even close to correct.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt has long been quoted as 1-1.5%. The 10% figure was quoted in one study that had very broad questions and thus over-counts the gay population. I have heard the same nonsense figure thrown around since I heard it in college. Sorry, 10% is not even close to correct.
There's probably and equal number of LG as there are B. Giving an overall 3%-3.2% population who are define as LGB. Transgender is around 0.5%.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to not supporting the Tea Party, I am willing to listen to why anyone does not support the Constitution and self-reliance and instead prefers a socialist system.
My low info $0.02...
RonC nailed it. Smashed it, obliterated that sumbitch. I raise my hands and bring them together in his honor.
Voting, more often than not, seems to be done with very little mental output. People don't vote with mind, they vote with heart. With feelings. You kind of have to, since what a pol says he's gonna do and what he actually does rarely resemble each other. So we go with how we feel.
Now, what you say, AZD, I'm all for. Despite our arguments on social issues, I think we're more similar than we are different. But what I feel when you (and all teabaggers) speak can best be described as "grating".
It's sounds elitist. High faluting. Like one is better than another. Doesn't matter if you're right, doesn't matter if it's true. It's disparaging to a number of people. People, as RonC perfectly pointed out, that are on your side.
What the TP stands for - small gov, less intrusion, adherance to the Constitution, is almost exactly what I'm looking for. But there's not a teabagger I've seen that doesn't make me want to headbutt him or her because of how they communicate their point. Doesn't matter what I think, that's just how I feel.
The TP/GOP doesn't need to change their message (become Dem), but they do need to work on how they deliver it.
Just my ignorant $0.02
Quote: Face
Now, what you say, AZD, I'm all for. Despite our arguments on social issues, I think we're more similar than we are different. But what I feel when you (and all teabaggers) speak can best be described as "grating".
It's sounds elitist. High faluting. Like one is better than another. Doesn't matter if you're right, doesn't matter if it's true. It's disparaging to a number of people. People, as RonC perfectly pointed out, that are on your side.
What the TP stands for - small gov, less intrusion, adherance to the Constitution, is almost exactly what I'm looking for. But there's not a teabagger I've seen that doesn't make me want to headbutt him or her because of how they communicate their point. Doesn't matter what I think, that's just how I feel.
The TP/GOP doesn't need to change their message (become Dem), but they do need to work on how they deliver it.
I would chalk this up to shall we say passion/enthusiasm. Clearly I cannot say this for everyone in the movement, but I just see what is going on in this nation and get a strong mix of being very concerned and very POed. We see that the groups who have gotten attention and had themselves listened to are the groups that made "noise." Blacks, women, gays, environmentalists, you name it. We see this "noise" going to crazy levels (eg: your daughter is now forced to use the same locker room as a boy who "identifies as a girl" in CA and you have no say.) We realize this is a culture war, and if we do not act we will lose.
I notice you use the homosexual-derogatory term "teabagger" at the same time you state you dislike the tone, BTW.
The tone will probably stay the same. The reason is the "get-along" tone does not work. Historically the left asks for change, the right says "no" but the establishment says in effect, "well, you can have half of what you are asking." The T-P is saying, "No, not at all. We do not want 'X'." The left never gives up, the T-P is saying we will not give up on what we believe, either.
If that is "grating" well I guess that is the price of discussion. Yes, I think you and I are more alike than different, and I suspect if I still lived in WNY we could have a few beers. But I would ask that if you like the message please do not ignore it because the messenger is not your exact taste.
Quote: rxwineThe message can't just be loud, because people like the Westboro Baptist Church are as loud as any. You think they are gaining ground with their message?
Never said it is "just loud." I said being quiet doesn't work.
BTW: We aren't proving a math problem here, one example being "false" does not make the entire premise "false" even if it is sometimes "true."
Quote: AZDuffmanNever said it is "just loud." I said being quiet doesn't work.
Loud and uncompromising. Still not enough.
You may think of Reagan as uncompromising on some things, but I'm sure he was careful about which battles he picked and when. Reagan also apparently knew when he held the winning hand and he could push and not stand down. Can't say much for the tea partier's last result with the shutdown.
That's not working smart.
Quote: AZDuffmanI would chalk this up to shall we say passion/enthusiasm. Clearly I cannot say this for everyone in the movement, but I just see what is going on in this nation and get a strong mix of being very concerned and very POed. We see that the groups who have gotten attention and had themselves listened to are the groups that made "noise." Blacks, women, gays, environmentalists, you name it. We see this "noise" going to crazy levels (eg: your daughter is now forced to use the same locker room as a boy who "identifies as a girl" in CA and you have no say.) We realize this is a culture war, and if we do not act we will lose.
Totally get it. And I'm seeing a strange thing. Someone from the left says gays are being discriminated against and call those that don't support gay-rights a name. Maybe "intolerant". And my brain says "Hey, I'm not intolerant. Yay gay rights!" Yet someone from the right says the Constitution is being trampled and if you don't think so, you're the 47%. And my brain says "F--- you guy, who are you to call names?"
I certainly hold the Constitution in higher regard than "gay rights", so why the difference in reaction? Honest question/observation.
Quote: AZDuffmanI notice you use the homosexual-derogatory term "teabagger" at the same time you state you dislike the tone, BTW.
LOL! OK, before I get flamed like WongBo used to flame me... that was not an intentional (or even a self observed) insult. Yes, I am aware of the sexual act it denotes; it is of course the best taunt ever when playing multiplayer FPS video games. HOWEVER, that was not my intention here. I certainly remember the beginning of the TP movement and them calling themselves teabaggers, and I remember how I giggled, thinking that was a bad choice. But since that's how I came to know them, that's how I always remember them (and refer to them). "Tea Partier" sounds dumb anyways =p I hope you'll trust that any insult was not intended.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf that is "grating" well I guess that is the price of discussion. Yes, I think you and I are more alike than different, and I suspect if I still lived in WNY we could have a few beers. But I would ask that if you like the message please do not ignore it because the messenger is not your exact taste.
I'm not ignoring it. But like many things in many areas, not capitalizing on potential irks me. The TP needs a silver tongue, someone who could talk the devil into setting himself on fire. Get loud? Sure. Get mad? I am. But all I hear being spoken is blunt common sense...and how many times does that ever work? ;)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-its-true-some-americans-wont-be-able-keep-their-health-care-plan-under-obamacare_764860.html
Watching Jay Carney squirm is always worth a chuckle or two...or it would be if it wasn't such a serious matter that he is squirming about each time.
If you believe the press guy, the President knows nothing about anything. Have we asked if he knows that he is President?
Quote: terapinedHeres the flaw in your logic, Its over 50 per cent that is demanding change, not 1 per cent. I am not gay but I am part of the over 50 per cent demanding change.
Quote: thecesspit4.5 Million are gay or lesbian in the US. But the support of their causes is bigger than that.
Membership and Support are different things. Careful how you use the words, Beethoven.
You guys need to go back and look at the statement I was responding to. The person talked about a "vocal minority". Gays themselves are the minority. They may get support from people who aren't gay, but those people are not part of the minority itself. OTOH, supporters of the Tea Party were/are referred to as a "vocal minority". I suppose one might argue that liberals who make fun of the Tea Party are ONLY making fun of the people who are active members of their local chapters, but I highly doubt that. When liberals criticize the Tea Party, I think it's safe to say that they are also referring to guys like me & everyone else who supports people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc.
Quote: FaceI certainly remember the beginning of the TP movement and them calling themselves teabaggers, and I remember how I giggled, thinking that was a bad choice. But since that's how I came to know them, that's how I always remember them (and refer to them). "Tea Partier" sounds dumb anyways =p I hope you'll trust that any insult was not intended.
Never heard of the anyone in the movement calling themselves "tea baggers." It was started on MSNBC. I am sure you did not mean to insinuate anything in general or about me personally, just trying to make a point on my side.
Quote:I'm not ignoring it. But like many things in many areas, not capitalizing on potential irks me. The TP needs a silver tongue, someone who could talk the devil into setting himself on fire. Get loud? Sure. Get mad? I am. But all I hear being spoken is blunt common sense...and how many times does that ever work? ;)
At some point that person will come by, look how long it took liberals to find Obama. And FWIW he did it by fooling many people into believing he was *not* a liberal.
Now I hear you on stating blunt common sense is not sexy, but it may be hard to do otherwise. Most people I have met at Tea Party events are down to earth types who don't present or fall for the sizzle in the sale. Most drive basic cars, live in basic houses, pick up after themselves, and have as a desire to be left alone. It is hard to make that a slogan I guess.
How about the Tea party has all of the answers and none of the solutions ?
Quote: AZDuffmanMost people I have met at Tea Party events are down to earth types who don't present or fall for the sizzle in the sale.
Another thing I've noticed (and it infuriates me) is that liberals & the media LOVE pointing out that the Tea Party is mostly white. While that observation is in fact true, you never hear these same people talk about how the gay movement is mostly white. NEVER.
Quote: Beethoven9thAnother thing I've noticed (and it infuriates me) is that liberals & the media LOVE pointing out that the Tea Party is mostly white. While that observation is in fact true, you never hear these same people talk about how the gay movement is mostly white. NEVER.
I'd expect it to be about the same demographics as the US. I know from a quick read recently, Tea Party demographics do match the US populace as a whole.
"A Gallup poll conducted in March 2010 found that—other than gender, income and politics—self-described Tea Party members were demographically similar to the population as a whole".
And on the gay question : "Minorities were more likely to identify as non-heterosexual; 4.6% of blacks, 4.0% of Hispanics and 3.2% of whites."
Both are predominantly white, because the US is predominantly white (72%).
The last time that I saw a gay person wave the stars and bars was Ru Paul in To Wong Fu while playing the character Rachel Tension:Quote: Beethoven9thAnother thing I've noticed (and it infuriates me) is that liberals & the media LOVE pointing out that the Tea Party is mostly white. While that observation is in fact true, you never hear these same people talk about how the gay movement is mostly white. NEVER.
The last time I saw a teabagger wave the stars and bars was last week:
So yeah, context matters.
Quote: Beethoven9thAnother thing I've noticed (and it infuriates me) is that liberals & the media LOVE pointing out that the Tea Party is mostly white. While that observation is in fact true, you never hear these same people talk about how the gay movement is mostly white. NEVER.
Gay movement mostly white? I really don't think so. Are you white? I'm certainly not white. I'm not black either. I'm bi-racial. There was just a huge march in Taiwan for gay rights recently. Its not even close to being a white movement, open your eyes. Its an international movement. I would consider gay activists in Taiwan to be Taiwanese, not white. What is your definition of a white person?
Exactly.Quote: thecesspitI'd expect it to be about the same demographics as the US. I know from a quick read recently, Tea Party demographics do match the US populace as a whole.
"A Gallup poll conducted in March 2010 found that—other than gender, income and politics—self-described Tea Party members were demographically similar to the population as a whole".
And on the gay question : "Minorities were more likely to identify as non-heterosexual; 4.6% of blacks, 4.0% of Hispanics and 3.2% of whites."
Both are predominantly white, because the US is predominantly white (72%).
I've noticed (just through personal observation, nothing scientific) that there seem to be more minorities who identify with the Tea Party movement than the gay movement. Yet one would NEVER know this by reading/listening to the media.
Quote: s2dbakerSo yeah, context matters.
Here, let me fix that:
"So yeah, selective context matters." LOL
Quote: Beethoven9thExactly.
I've noticed (just through personal observation, nothing scientific) that there seem to be more minorities who identify with the Tea Party movement than the gay movement. Yet one would NEVER know this by reading/listening to the media.
Its a big planet, Lets see , gays in Taiwan, gee, no whites, all Tawainese, how can that be when most gays are white according to beethoven9th, its because its a big planet. In ALL areas on the planet, There are gays, but gay whites are actually a tiny part of the gay population in some countrys.
Quote: terapinedGay movement mostly white? I really don't think so. Are you white? I'm certainly not white. I'm not black either. I'm bi-racial. There was just a huge march in Taiwan for gay rights recently. Its not even close to being a white movement, open your eyes. Its an international movement. I would consider gay activists in Taiwan to be Taiwanese, not white. What is your definition of a white person?
That's a silly take on my statement, but I'll play along. ;)
Tell me: How many African countries have legalized gay marriage, and how many have banned it?
EDIT: Yeah, I'm white. Or should I say an "angry, unreasonable, intolerant white man"? lol
Quote: thecesspit
And on the gay question : "Minorities were more likely to identify as non-heterosexual; 4.6% of blacks, 4.0% of Hispanics and 3.2% of whites."
Hmmm, I've suspected this for the past few years now.
It would be interesting to see where Asians and people of Middle Eastern decent fit.
Quote: Beethoven9thExactly.
I've noticed (just through personal observation, nothing scientific) that there seem to be more minorities who identify with the Tea Party movement than the gay movement. Yet one would NEVER know this by reading/listening to the media.
There is a link between the Lost Cause and the Tea Party support as well, based on issues of States Rights. These are often conflated with the racism, for historical reasons, but the Democrats are to blame for all of that. (only half smiley face). And for many of the problems in the rebuilding of the south. But the Civil War was fought because of States Rights to cede from the Union, with the reason being slave ownership that states wanted to keep.
How much control the Federal level was a key question, and some of the Tea Party charters I have seen wish to limit or being to opt out of some Federal control items.
Just musing...
