This recent grassroots swing to the radical right is toxic. We're seeing it getting people hurt and killed already, and anyone who dares to touch will be stained by it. The Tea Party movement seems like a phenomenon right now, but in a decade, its followers will be seen as the evil twin of the hippies.
A political cartoon is really only as good as the political climate it encapsulates. If you want me to admit that "Red States" is sensationalistic and over the top, well, yes, it is. But I still believe the Republicans' strategy to score political victories in the short run damages their viability to be taken seriously in the long term.
Do you need this spelled out for you? Feel free to take another three months to respond, because I am currently in no mood for this kind of crap.
Actually, the comment wasn't aimed at you or this piece. Since you and I were able to have a respectable debate without resorting to namecalling, I was hoping you could explain to SimnoeHill how it much better a debate works that way.
Radical right? Why, because people are angry that big brother isn't listening to them? And please, provide examples of people getting hurt and killed.
And the freaks of the sixties performed riots, not organized protests like the Tea Party movement. You'll notice that the National Guard hasn't had to be called out and there aren't police in riot gear at the meetings.
First: semantics. Who's Big Brother? The administration that wants to provide health care to all American citizens, or the Administration that said torture is okay, if we think you're a terrorist?
Second: generalizations. People in the 60s protested publicly for human rights issues, like voting, anti-discrimination laws, women's lib, and sound environmental policy. Today, I see birthers, secessionists, and gun collectors likening the President to Hitler because of minor political differences.
Third: History. I remember from history class two times the National Guard was called out. The first was to desegregate southern schools and protect black students from the kind of racists who today think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the country. The other was Kent State, where the National Guard shot and killed 4 students, who were peacefully protesting the invasion of Cambodia. If the National Guard hasn't been called out "this time" it might be because Tea Partiers, are, for the most part, middle-aged and white. It's much easier, politically, to point guns at ethnically diverse college students with crazy long hair.
Fourth: examples. I do believe that the fellow who shot a security guard in the Holocaust museum last year wasn't a Democrat. Neither was the guy who brought a machine gun to an anti-Obama rally. Oh, and the fellow who crashed his plane into the IRS building? The same kind of Libertarian that tea parties attract. Ditto the fellow who shot two security guards outside the Pentagon last week. And to give you a mulligan, I won't name all the acts of violence and discrimination made against gay folk for the past sixty years.
The Final Burn: the entire bloody point of the piece is that the Tea Party is based on empty fury, and a notable absence of facts. Politicians who ally themselves with misinformed kooks will find themselves on the short end of the stick, every time.
"First: semantics. Who's Big Brother? The administration that wants to provide health care to all American citizens, or the Administration that said torture is okay, if we think you're a terrorist?"
Big brother is just what I use to refer to the government. And healthcare is man-made service, so it cannot be a right as there can be no right to enslave (anyone who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave), plus where in the Constitution is government given any say in healthcare? And if you read the Geneva convention, it outlines what is required to be considered a POW and thus protected, and the terrorists we're fighting violate every part of it.
"generalizations. People in the 60s protested publicly for human rights issues, like voting, anti-discrimination laws, women's lib, and sound environmental policy. Today, I see birthers, secessionists, and gun collectors likening the President to Hitler because of minor political differences."
And in most cases, their protests resulted in damage to public and private property and injury to the police, whereas the Tea Party protests are generally peaceful and require little if any intervention by the authorities.
And for your education, I present the definition of fascism from the American College dictionary: a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.).
Look at how much Obama has grown the government, look at how much he plans to grow it more, look at how he and his supporters react to those who oppose him (remember that national security memo that came out right after he was elected, suggesting that anyone who pretty much disagreed with him was a potential right-wing terrorist?) and tell me he doesn't fall under that definition.
"Third: History. I remember from history class two times the National Guard was called out. The first was to desegregate southern schools and protect black students from the kind of racists who today think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the country."
LOL, thank you so much for showing the "tolerance" that Obama encourages. I seem to recall, during the Bush administration, that dissent was called the highest form of patriotism by the very party that is now in office. How nice of you to demonstrate said party's hypocrisy. Oh, and if racism means holding both black and white presidents to the same standards, then I wear that title with pride.
"The other was Kent State, where the National Guard shot and killed 4 students, who were peacefully protesting the invasion of Cambodia."
Do reread your history and learn why the National Guard was called out in the first place and exactly how "peaceful" the protests were:
"If the National Guard hasn't been called out "this time" it might be because Tea Partiers, are, for the most part, middle-aged and white. It's much easier, politically, to point guns at ethnically diverse college students with crazy long hair."
Or, as rational people would say, perhaps it is because they are peaceful protests.
"Fourth: examples. I do believe that the fellow who shot a security guard in the Holocaust museum last year wasn't a Democrat."
He wasn't a republican either. He was an INDIVIDUAL. You just essentially said racism is wrong. Well, explain to me the difference between saying all blacks are inferior because a few of them are criminals and saying all Republicans are guilty because of the action of a few radicals?
"Neither was the guy who brought a machine gun to an anti-Obama rally."
LOL again, it was a semi-automatic rifle (automatic weapons are illegal). Please my friend, ignorance and hysteria are not the way to win a debate. And last I checked, there's no law forbidding that (in fact, there's a law that allows such an act called "open-carry". Many states have them).
"Oh, and the fellow who crashed his plane into the IRS building? The same kind of Libertarian that tea parties attract."
Why don't you read the whole letter of "the fellow who crashed his plan into the IRS building." (By the way, if you believe only right wingers are anti-government, look up Ho Chi Minh, Che, Fidel Castro, and Mao Zedong. All of them launched violent campaigns against governments) By the way, in light of your support for collective guilt, do I get to blame you for all crimes committed by your political group, gender, and/or race?
"Ditto the fellow who shot two security guards outside the Pentagon last week."
"And to give you a mulligan, I won't name all the acts of violence and discrimination made against gay folk for the past sixty years."
So those were wrong, yet there's nothing wrong with labeling gun owners as right-wing terrorists, gun nuts, killers, etc and going after them everytime there's a shooting?
"The Final Burn: the entire bloody point of the piece is that the Tea Party is based on empty fury, and a notable absence of facts. Politicians who ally themselves with misinformed kooks will find themselves on the short end of the stick, every time."
Fact: The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the people or the states.
Fact: There is nothing in the Constitution granting the government authority to bail out banks or businesses and there is nothing in it giving government any say in healthcare.
Fact: The Tea Partiers are protesting against out of control government growth and based on the above two facts, their protests are more than justified.
Good, this getting fun. The last guy who tried this ended up just calling me names. Let me try to boil things down, while making a point at the same time.
1. Calling all government "Big Brother" is gross over-generalization on your part. Even a government as fat and bogged down as ours provides a number of good public services, and, unlike Orwell's Britain, it does not continuously monitor us in our homes, arrest people for thought crime, or torture people with face-chewing rats. Of course, if it does, I'd be first in line to protest. 2. Frankly, if you weigh a few overturned cars and broken windows against the right of millions of Americans to vote and be treated as equals (the separate but equal laws varied by STATE, remember), I'll take the repair bill. 3. I present the Merriam Webster definition of Fascism: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" I don't think America is Fascist just because it's trying to tell banks to stop scamming people. 4. The growth of the government is a legitimate concern. Our system is weighed down by its own massiveness, which hinders its ability to actually help and protect people, in this country and in others. On the other hand, what about people like Bernie Madoff? What about Bears Sterns and Blackwater and Goldman Sachhs (sic)? For every good-natured person who doesn't need a law to tell him what's wrong, there's another individual or company who will push the boundaries of decency and steal and suck people dry for all they're worth. And the government comes in and makes laws to stop them. And they try to find loopholes. And the government makes more laws. If you want a smaller government, you have to change the society that necessitates such a huge fucking government. And of course, if the government tried to do that (being the only entity large enough to attempt to) that would be Fascism. No win. 5. Apologies about the semi-automatic rifle. I forgot that those only semi-kill people. 6. There are different kinds of violence from beating someone with a baseball bat. Threats, like semi-automatics and signs demanding "The blood of tyrants" seem to promote violence. Those town hall meetings with Congressmen weren't exactly peaceful. People were calling speakers Communist, and shouting down their answers, and shutting down meaningful debate. I have no qualm about meaningful debate. But a lot of these people just seem to want to yell at "the system". I did that too, when I was 17. 7. I would not go after gun owners after every psychopathic shooting spree. I simply think that many of our country's gun laws are (ironically) too liberal. When it comes to machines used solely for killing, there should be strict laws to keep the lone nuts from hurting innocents. I don't think background checks and limits of 1 gun a month is too much. 8. The Constitution, in the Preamble, promises "a more perfect union,... justice,... domestic tranquility,... the common defense,... the general welfare, and.. the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." I'd say that universal health care might fall under more perfect union, general welfare, and domestic tranquility. 9. Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution about all those things you mentioned. There is also no mention of the government NOT doing all those things. The Constitution does not give us the power to torture foreigners, either. For several years, the Constitution said that a black man was worth 3/5 of a white man. The U.S. Constitution, while invaluable, is not the end-all, be-all of law and justice. Lots of countries have Constitutions, and frankly, maybe we could learn a little from them. Maybe they could learn a little from us. Laws need to reflect the society we live in, and right now, we live in a very greedy, corrupt, and angry society. 10. I was confused by your Ho Chi Minh reference. Are the tea partiers like Ho Chi Minh? Is the IRS bomber? Is President Obama? 11. This is getting long anyway. Suffice to say, I wish people would stop likening everything they don't agree with to Hitler or Stalin. When you get people's blood going like that, they start to talk about crazy things like the blood of tyrants, and secession.
Last point: I doubt I can convince you of anything, and you can't me. If you chose to reply, narrow your talking points to topics directly represented in the piece. This might not be fair to you, but there's nothing in the Constitution about it, so I think I'm legally in the clear.
So I decided to open
a new contest, and
it's with Izka again
^^; what can I do, I
love her so so
much!!But this time
a quite short and
easy one: Draw Izka
as Chibi!!I really
hope you will be
wanted to put a cute
Izka on my page to
welcome all visitors
but I couldn't c...
Hello and welcome
everyone to another
issue of our Manga
and Anime Artist of
the Month! I'm
to announce that
May's Artist of the
month award goes to
Ever since I met
Laura I fell in love
with her art! Her
style is simply
Year II - Issue
Features is a weekly
feature designed to
section of the most
support by faving
this article and
`anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More