I am not, you extended the tea party's principle of limited government to include no government, which a very small number of libertarians within the group want.
I didn't extend it to that, and I'm sorry if I gave off that impression. I was referring to this:
I'll say this again, because you have once more misunderstood me. I did not mean to infer that the tea party is an anarchistic group. My point was that I think certain things
need to be regulated. Among them are economics, certain social affairs, infra-structure, and military. The tea party is for minimal control of economy as far as I know, and far lower taxes. Now, the consequences of this are far wider than you probably know.
On the Boston Tea Party:
I'm going to concede here. I admit that the Boston Tea Party was not a terrorist act. I was misinformed by my history teacher, who lead me to believe this was a violent episode where people got killed.
On France and WW2:
I was referring to Europe, not to the entire world. Not so sure exactly what the US did in Africa. I know that Hitler's faults caused him to lose there, though. He executed his best commander for a suspicion of treason. That man was an incredibly lucky idiot to have gotten so far.
The Soviets were so vastly more important than the US in Europe, that one might as well consider the end of the war there completely their doing. The Eastern Front was what, four times the magnitude of the western one? Face it, the Soviets would have crushed the Germans regardless of American intervention at the very end of the war. Sure, your support up to the point where you started involving yourselves in Europe was nice for the British. Yet it was Hitler's faults that caused him to lose almost every battle he lost. Battle of Britain? Retreating instead of attacking more heavily. Soviets? Should never have been attacked (he only did that because he thought he was Emperor Julian; completely insane). The Soviets, however, basically fared alone against an overwhelming force, and still held their own.
In the end, the Soviets pushed back the German forces, and were the first to get to Berlin. Churchill went into a
panic about the Soviets, and actually suggested to go to war against the Soviets just after retaking France and half of Berlin. If they had, they still would have lost, as the allied numbers were
still inferior to the Soviet numbers, not to mention that the Soviets had superior positioning.
The US was nice for support in WW2. Otherwise, you really didn't do much for Europe.
So again, you have a general dislike of all Americans? I am constructing no straw man, you mentioned hedge funds, I mentioned what fueled their meltdown. Logical progression of the arguments in play.
Okay. Let me get this straight. You're not only accusing me of saying something about the Republicans being responsible for hedgefunds (in the quote that follows):
As for the toys, this is an example of what I'd call sane regulation. Much like I think it'd be sane to ban hedgefunds all the other fancy financial things that made the US economy fall on its ass.
But also that I somehow said I disliked all Americans. Now, call me crazy, but those are two huge freaking straw-men. Look the term up if you like. I am for
sane regulation. It's not sane to allow hedgefunds and subprime mortgages, and I never suggested that the Republicans were responsible for that. I suggested that American politics allowed it, and that doesn't just apply to Republicans. Mind you, the Republicans had power for 8 years, and still didn't change it, so they're just as much to blame as the Democrats.
By who's measure? Seriously Avenger, are you a licensed practitioner of psychology? Did you change your focus in school from enviromental sciences to phychological make up of political movements? The last I looked the party is comprised of only 50% Republicans (conservative and social conservative), the rest are a mix of Independents (of all political leanings), Libertarians, and yes even Democrats. I'll also caution you to remember that many people within the movement have written to their representation to oppose bailouts and the health care bill, neither of which government would listen to. Hence not being represented. Once our chance came to take back the house by election, we did. The guns were not used, and are again symbolic, not an open face threat. Being a european, I'm sure you do not have the same upbringing with guns that I do, to most people in rural areas, guns are a symbol of freedom. Now, all that being said, you still haven't told me what you think the movement stands for. Sure I know you think that they are radical and insane, but that doesn't tell me what it stands for.
I never studied environmental sciences. I study hard-science in multiple varieties. In any case, I apologise for my harsh and somewhat stupid statements about the tea party earlier. I used bad rhetoric in retaliation to your straw-man, and I regret that. I think the movement stands for lower taxes and less government. From my perspective, the US needs something entirely different. The US needs political and economical accountability, and a thorough reorganization of government that makes it harder for lobbyists and corporations to take control of bills. I also think you must be putting a lot of money into some kind of black hole, because a country as rich as yours should not be in the state that it is in.
Universal healthcare is not a bad thing, regardless of what you might think. It allows
everyone to get medical treatment. I do, however, agree that the healthcare billed that passed should not have passed. I disagree with that bill because it gives power to the insurance companies, and
no one should make money off of people getting ill.
That being said, if you're worried about a reduced standard of healthcare if you have universal healthcare: No worries. In Socialist Norway, rich people still get better treatment than poor people.
I also agree on the bailouts being a mistake. It was a short-term decision and not a long-term one. It's clear that Obama's administration has some form of corruption (that was present in the last three or four governments, too, if not all of them back to the eighteen hundreds) in terms of Goldman & Sachs. If a corporation can't sustain itself,
tear it down. It shouldn't be babied under any circumstance, considering
how such corporations usually end up getting in trouble (illegal activities, gambles).
I'm just a sucker for sensible regulation.
So we are all judged by hyperbole Beck? What does that say about the leftists and Kieth Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz? How about Dylan Ratigan who called for armed rebellion when dems lost these midterm elections? Your idea of the tea party is colored by your general dislike of Americans then, because the tea party is a fairly good cross section of America.
Oh, I'm not saying the left don't have crazy people. I'm saying I haven't heard of them, because they're not as
vocal as the right-wing ones. See, if you let the crazies in your political party be its voices, that's the view people will have of it. I think all your political parties are stupid, so I'm not really biased in that sense. Hell, I think most of
my country's political parties are stupid, even the one I subscribe to.