Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

These tea party people....

213 replies

Hassled · 11/10/2010 21:37

Nutters? In this BBC blog, one woman says "This progressive agenda (Obama's economic policies) has progressed to the tipping point in the United States, where we either stand up for the constitution of the United States or we accept socialism, tainted with Marxism."

How can she interpret Obama's policies as socialism tainted with Marxism? Is it just down to lack of education? I really, genuinely, don't understand. I don't understand the fear they seem to have. And they're doing well - they've got the Delaware Senate nomination, NY, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky and Alaska. Meanwhile they're being funded by billionaires who clearly have a vested interest keeping the focus on tax cuts for the rich.

I don't know what my point is really - I get that many people want smaller government, lower taxation, less govt spending etc, but that view is already well represented. I don't get this extremism.

OP posts:
ISNT · 14/10/2010 21:09

What was that great big essay about?

You still haven't answered my question as to why moving away from fossil fuels, to renewable fuel sources, giving us freedom, independence and wealth, is a terrible terrible thing.

Your posting style is very strange, actually.

I don't think you ever answer a direct question. Scratch Jeremy Clarkson, are you a politician?

claig · 14/10/2010 21:06

I am against Union Carbide and against the global warmers.

'Handling our environment ie the one that provides us with all of our resources including the food we eat and the air we breathe, with a little respect, is common sense I'd have thought.'

I would have thought so too, which is why I struggle to understands why they allow the planting of genetically modified crops which then contaminate the land around them.

claig · 14/10/2010 21:03

I am all for clean air and scientific breakthroughs. I am all for health, which is why, unlike the progressives, I am against GM food and additives and aspartame in our food and drinks.

I am against the hot air of global warming.

I am a fan of Clarkson, particularly as he has challenged the sacred cows of Eton educated green guru, Sir Jonathon Porritt. Porritt has a feud with Clarkson, because Clarkson doesn't believe in global warming. Porritt has called him a "bigoted petrolhead".

You always know when someone is losing an argument, it is when they start insulting the other person and calling them a bigot, as gordon caleed Mrs. Duffy, or when they say that the other person doesn't make sense, or when they call the Tea Party "nutters".

Here is Porritt, the champion of sustainability, and someone who says that having more than two children should be seen as being irresponsible to the planet, in full flow against Clarkson, who dares not to believe.

"The former director of Friends of the Earth, who heads the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, chose the opening of a classroom at Rendcomb College, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire, for the latest round in a long-running feud. Sir Jonathon blamed Clarkson for public apathy about climate change and contrasted him with his fellow BBC presenter Sir David Attenborough, who recently went public for the first time about his fears over global warming. Clarkson, on the other hand, is renowned for belittling the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions.

"In my mind this outstandingly bigoted petrolhead is partly responsible for why so many people today still somehow think that the world is going to be drawn in the image of Jeremy Clarkson rather than the image of David Attenborough and others," Sir Jonathon said. "Anyone who can shut up Jeremy Clarkson deserves more honours than have already been heaped on David Attenborough."

In the past, Sir David has come under fire from environmentalists for failing to use the platform afforded him as the doyen of natural history programmes to address the threat from rising temperatures. But Sir David told The Independent last week: "I am no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major threat facing the world."

Sir Jonathon said: "I am delighted that David has accepted the evidence that most people accepted a long time ago ... When people like David Attenborough think very carefully about the evidence, eventually there is very little room for people playing the scientific uncertainty argument. Maybe he will even shut up Jeremy Clarkson. That would be a great relief."

Porritt also welcomes Sir David Attenborough into the fold, because Sir David was once a non-believer.

Monbiot is not too keen on that other non-believer, Sir David Bellamy and Monbiot has even described the green guru grandaddy of them all, Sir James Lovelock, as having an attack of the "bellamoids" because he had said a few things that were off message.

Most people can see through them and their use of intemperate language, just as most people can see through the desperation of the progressives in their attacks on the "nutters" in the Tea Party and on their ridiculing of the next President of the United States, Sarah Palin.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 21:03

What about the habitats of human beings that are being destroyed by the fossil fuel industry and other industry? Doesn't that matter? Or is it only certain humans that it's important to look after ie you and yours (basic right wing philosophy).

The niger delta is a mess, remember what happened with union carbide, hundreds of thousands of people (yes, those humans you were talking about) have to live in toxic environments due to the activities of other humans. These toxic environments kill humans, damage their offspring, shorten life expectancy, destroy their food supplies.

Handling our environment ie the one that provides us with all of our resources including the food we eat and the air we breathe, with a little respect, is common sense I'd have thought. And not jeopardising the habitat of thousands / millions of humans through short sighted, unsafe and profiteering behaviour is also basic common sense to anyone with an ounce of compassion.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 14/10/2010 21:01

Claig - you talk in wishes and platitudes.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 14/10/2010 21:00

Being anti-globalisation is like being anti-water running down hill.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 20:37

What's wrong with wind farms and solar power and heat sinks and wave power and heat exchangers and high efficiency boilers and cars with lower emissions? You put people at the top of the food chain as the most important thing there is above anything else - thousands die in London every year due to the pollution - if we were all running electric vehicles from renewable resources the air would be clean and those people wouldn't die - what's not to like?

Are you, in fact, Jeremy Clarkson? I claim my £5.

claig · 14/10/2010 20:29

Exactly human beings are part of nature and in my opinion more important than the lesser spotted beetle and its habitat. I think the planet will survive, I don't think that human beings are causing the death of the planet.

I think green industries will remain in their infancy, and we will be taxed by the progressives. I think the real hidden agenda is nuclear power and that is what they want to convince the people about. James lovelock is only one of the green voices who adviocate "clean" nuclear power. I think they know that there will be a resistance from the public, but they will sell it to the public by frightening them about energy shortages and when investors and shareholders inevitably lose their money in wind turbine companies, then nuclear will be the only answer.

I think I talk in words and ideas. I think "building a progressive future" and "for a fairer Britain" are slogans. I don't use those - the progressives do that.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 20:21

You think that human beings are more important than the environment?

But human beings are a part of the environment. We are animals who live on this planet. We are not some kind of separate entities. That gets a Hmm too I'm afraid.

Green industries are in their infancy and growing fast. We are already winning contracts from overseas for building wind turbines, there are new energy providers supplying green energy and giving people a choice outside the big 4 (5? however many it is. not many). We are at the forefront of new technology to harness many different types of renewable resource. And once much of our power needs are met locally, we will be a more stable, wealthier and independent country.

You claim to be for low taxation and also for nationalisation of industry and also for a world-beating national health service. You say that you don't want the NHS managers paid high salaries but you are happy for private bosses to be paid higher fees.

And thecoalitionneedsyou is right - you talk in slogans.

claig · 14/10/2010 20:08

choose to spend it in the way they see fit

claig · 14/10/2010 20:06

I think I make sense. I think the British people make sense, which is why they voted for the Coalition. I think many of the Tea Party's policies make perfect sense, which is why they are making such headway in the United States, against all odds.

I think human beings are more important than the environment. I think the environmental agenda is a lie and is against the interests of human beings.

How much do you think these small green companies contribute to GDP and the wealth of the nation? How many health services for human beings do you think they are able to pay for?

I believe in nationalisation and private enterprise. I don't care who runs things as longs as they are efficently managed in the greater interests of the country. I'm not against high wages for individuals running hospitals as long as they are doing an effective job and serving the people.

I am for low taxation, because I think that forces teh bureaucrats to spend the money that they take in, wisely. They won't be able to waste it without the public's say so. I believe in incentivising hard work and allowing families to keep as much money as possible and choose it in the way they see fit. I believe in the people and their judgement, not in the judgement of bureaucrats with no accountability.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 19:56

You think that beautiful unspoilt landscapes should be drilled and mined where possible.

You don't believe that harnessing renewable energy resources is sparking a huge industry, employing people from the scientific world, to engineers, to manufacturers, to companies selling and distributing. Well OK Hmm I am obviously imagining all of these small companies that are involved in the "green" sector. Or not.

You say that you believe in lower taxation but at the same time super-top public services, somehow run by private nationalised companies.

You don't make any sense.

claig · 14/10/2010 19:52

Yes I think they should drill for oil there.

'I just cannot see how developing a thriving industry, full of small businesses, original scientific and engineering progress, enterprise and initiative, can possibly be a bad thing.'

it sounds like you've been taken in by Gordon Brown, the man who saved the world from financial collapse and was instrumental in saving the planet from the horrors, tidal waves and desertification of global warming.

I am saying the Tea Party is good for democracy. I agree with some of their policies and not others. I agree with their anti-globalisation stance, their anti bailing out fatcats and banks stance, their anti green agenda, their belief in lower taxation and removal of bureaucrats and a smaller government. I don't agree with all of their other policies. I believe that Cameron is the best hope for us here, but I don't agree with his green agenda and his globalisation stance, for example.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 19:44

I just cannot see how developing a thriving industry, full of small businesses, original scientific and engineering progress, enterprise and initiative, can possibly be a bad thing.

And at the same time we reduce our dependence on oil, which is a good thing for loads of reasons.

I can't see a downside, really I can't.

I also don't understand why you keep banging on about how great the tea party are, and how great sarah palin is, and yet whenever you are asked a specific question about their ideas and policies, you say "well I'm not american it's nothing to do with me". that doesn't make any sense.

Do you agree that the US should drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

claig · 14/10/2010 19:29

2 years to go, then Sarah palin will be President of the United States. There's no contest, the more the progressives mock and jeer at her, the more Americans will flock to her. It's a dead cert and the times they are a changing.

Palin for President - Time Magazine

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 14/10/2010 19:25

Up until a couple of years ago private enterprise was doing just fine without a tory goveernment.

claig · 14/10/2010 19:23

'Everyone wants to make the country wealthier and not to waste money'

I think you're wrong. I don't think the progressives do want that, otherwise they wouldn't do the things they do.

claig · 14/10/2010 19:22

You can have nationalised industries and support private enterprise, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think that's what they should do.

The green movement imposes taxes on industry and the public. It is the progressives way of thwarting capitalist enterprise. Sarah Palin is on the money. I think Sarah Palin will become President of the United States, in spite of the dersion heaped on her by progressives. I think we will see some changes then.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 14/10/2010 19:19

Claig - your talking in platiudes. Everyone wants to make the country wealthier and not to waste money. It's like saying your in favour of nice weather and lovely food.

claig · 14/10/2010 19:17

I don't believe everything the Tories say. But I watched the Progressives at their party conference, with their slogan of "building a progressive future". All you have to do is look at their progressive past to realise that the Coalition is the best chance that the British people have got.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 19:16

I don't understand.

Nationalisation

Party of business

=

opposites

ISNT · 14/10/2010 19:15

I also don't understand why it is a bad idea to move away from reliance on oil and other fossil fuels and move towards methods of generating energy at home, creating stacks of jobs, improving our independence and self-sufficiency.. What's not to like Hmm

claig · 14/10/2010 19:14

I hope Sir Philip Green finds out what we spend our money on. I want to cut the inessentials and get our priorities right. I support nationalisation, I am different to Cameron and Gordon Brown. We can become wealthier by creating more incentives for business and creating a better environment for business. The best party for that is the party of business - the Conservative Party.

ISNT · 14/10/2010 19:13

Nationalised companies? What do you mean?

Conservative policy is not as outlined in your last post.

So far they have:

Decided to spend a vast amount of money that we haven't got on restructuring the NHS, in a way that the BMA and other groups say won't work

Taken a universal benefit and made it non-universal in a totally unfair fashion

Randomly given back the savings from that as a tax cut for people who happen to be married

Cut welfare payments for the most deprived people in society, disconnecting this type of payment from need for the first time in teh history of the welfare state, deciding instead how much money people can have based on whether the govt approves of them or not

For their next trick

Thousands and thousands of people to be made unemployed due to huge public sector cuts

ooooh yes vote tory Hmm

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 14/10/2010 19:09

Claig - how much is 'spent' on global warming as a % of health care? It wouldn't touch the sides. I don't think nationalisation is a traditional tory policy.

Yes, let's become a wealthier country. Lets ban murder while we're at it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread