This is getting spread all over the interwebs:
Go to the actual page for all the proof!
http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/an-open-letter-to-conservatives/
An open letter to conservatives
Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.
First, the invitation: Come back to us.
Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from yours; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.
Your party — the GOP — and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some expamples — by no means an exhaustive list — of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.
If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:
Hypocrisy
You can't flip out —
Please don't flip out, this had to be edited for brevity and you have been advised multiple times in the past that entire citations are not appreciated by other readers when they make it too difficult to read or have to scroll until eternity to read other replies. If someone wants to read the entire thing, they can click on the link and read the rest. The content is not the problem here, it's how much space it was taking. No, your account was not hacked, but we are still in control. Bwah hah hah hah hah!- Moderator & Little Green Men
Pretty amazing stuff and only 11 other viewers. Either there aren't many conservatives on this forum or they are unable or unwilling to read.
...And here comes Waterboy with the reach-around!!!
You guys lost me at "Dear". Okay I actually read to about the third paragraph. I'm a disaffected Republican and that is one of the sorriest wheel barrows full of smile I've ever read. That letter writer is not allowed in my new "Disenfranchised, philosophically obsolete Republican party cast-offs who happen to look at Tea Partiers with a wary eye party".
Truth is the truth hurts. That explains the Conan Trite Train.
The Tea Baggers really are puzzling to someone with rational thought. Their claim is they are against taxes and want more tax cuts (regardless of adverse consequences) and yet, cannot even become educated enough to understand they got the biggest tax cut in the history of the world just last year. Huh,... go figure.
Here are some questions - how much is enough on tax cuts??
Where should the tax level be??
How many more tax cuts should we have here??
Let's here a concrete, real live suggestion with a real number from the Tea Baggers.
But that would require something other than "no".
When I read "Tea Bagger", that discounts anything you write for it's the same activity you condemn by the right of being hateful.
Quote from: HazMatCFO on March 25, 2010, 10:45:11 PM
When I read "Tea Bagger", that discounts anything you write for it's the same activity you condemn by the right of being hateful.
But see, the funny thing is, 'tea bagger' was a phrase coined by a conservative.
Shadows forgot to sign that letter.
If I was bored I'd change a couple of nouns and post it as an open letter to liberals.
I can't read it. It's got big words in there.
QuotePlease don't flip out, this had to be edited for brevity and you have been advised multiple times in the past that entire citations are not appreciated by other readers when they make it too difficult to read or have to scroll until eternity to read other replies. If someone wants to read the entire thing, they can click on the link and read the rest. The content is not the problem here, it's how much space it was taking. No, your account was not hacked, but we are still in control. Bwah hah hah hah hah!- Moderator & Little Green Men
This was not me. PM somebody else.
Tea Bagger is/was a neo-con term. I hope HazMat pays more attention in the job (CFO??) than does to casual reading here.
Just kind of a cute euphemism for people who scream and clamber for something, when they already have it. And apparently don't even know they have it. Still amazing.
Quote from: Hoss on March 25, 2010, 10:52:33 PM
But see, the funny thing is, 'tea bagger' was a phrase coined by a conservative.
And one the tea baggers seem to wear proudly. Most of them are likely unaware of the "alternative" meaning of that phrase...
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 12:19:51 PM
And one the tea baggers seem to wear proudly. Most of them are likely unaware of the "alternative" meaning of that phrase...
I think most of them really don't care what you call them.
Name calling and ridicule are a liberal tool. There are those on both sides that use this tactic, however it is weighted and valued more by liberals than conservatives. It's a diversionary tactic that only proves effective when the victim choose to be a victim by reacting.
Alinsky taught RULE # 5
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."The problem is that when the opposition fails to react, those leveraging the ridicule are weakened by it.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 26, 2010, 12:30:06 PM
I think most of them really don't care what you call them.
Name calling and ridicule are a liberal tool. There are those on both sides that use this tactic, however it is weighted and valued more by liberals than conservatives. It's a diversionary tactic that only proves effective when the victim choose to be a victim by reacting.
I seem to hear O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, and others use name calling pretty much constantly. It is by no means a "liberal tool." It's called frustration. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
Who's a liberal tool?
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 12:32:23 PM
I seem to hear O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, and others use name calling pretty much constantly. It is by no means a "liberal tool." It's called frustration. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
You are correct there are "entertainers and commentators" that use the tactic. I was thinking of politicians.
I love that you snuck in Palin. That was crafty of you. I think the only name she ever hung on her opposition was "socialist." That may have been an unfair moniker, however when I read the definition, I'm not sure the current administration would be able to defend against such a label?
SOCIALISM
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.Are these goals not aligned with the current administration's actions?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 26, 2010, 12:05:49 PM
Tea Bagger is/was a neo-con term. I hope HazMat pays more attention in the job (CFO??) than does to casual reading here.
Just kind of a cute euphemism for people who scream and clamber for something, when they already have it. And apparently don't even know they have it. Still amazing.
There's got to be a Godwin's law of some sort for using Neo-Con and Tea b***** in the same sentence. Congratulations, your non-partisan stance is duly noted.
Sorry guys/gals that term is incredibly demeaning and sophomoric, it's used far more by liberals as a derisive term than it is by any one affiliated with the Tea Party.
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 12:32:23 PM
I seem to hear O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, and others use name calling pretty much constantly. It is by no means a be the "liberal tool." It's called frustration. I'm sure you're familiar with it sgrizzle refers to.
FIFY
Quote from: Gaspar on March 26, 2010, 12:46:27 PM
I love that you snuck in Palin. That was crafty of you. I think the only name she ever hung on her opposition was "socialist." That may have been an unfair moniker, however when I read the definition, I'm not sure the current administration would be able to defend against such a label?
I looked to see if there was any name calling from Palin.
You're right, I couldn't find any where she was name calling.
She defended it though:
QuoteComedy Central funnyman Stephen Colbert put Sarah Palin's "satire" defense over the word "retard" to the test Monday night - and used it to describe the former Alaska governor.
"We should all come to her defense and say that Sarah Palin is a f---ing retard," Colbert said.
"It's satire."
The comic jab came after Palin, who lobbed criticism at White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for calling liberal activists "f---ing retarded," later forgave Rush Limbaugh for doing the same thing, calling his use of the term "satire."
"Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards," the conservative talk show host said on his radio show.
"He was satirical in that," Palin said on Fox News Sunday.
Her defense of Limbaugh seemed to contradict her spokesperson, who said last week, "Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful."
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/02/09/2010-02-09_stephen_colbert_defends_sarah_palin_on_colbert_report_calls_her_a_fing_retard.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/02/09/2010-02-09_stephen_colbert_defends_sarah_palin_on_colbert_report_calls_her_a_fing_retard.html)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 26, 2010, 12:46:27 PM
SOCIALISM a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Are these goals not aligned with the current administration's actions?
Are those goals not the ideal of the entire nation? I think pretty much everyone supports the economic freedom to start their own business, and therefore own part of the means of production.
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 02:09:42 PM
Are those goals not the ideal of the entire nation? I think pretty much everyone supports the economic freedom to start their own business, and therefore own part of the means of production.
Interesting.
My wife and I own a business. My community does not own it. You are part of the community and while I may value your opinion, you have no power over my business except with which you choose to pay for my goods or services.
For some the trappings of socialism are intoxicating. . .The concept of community control and ownership. . .The hive.
Unfortunately it is a short lived system. It always degrades into tyranny because it cannot tolerate freedom.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. – Winston ChurchillThe fatal flaw in socialism is twofold: first, the conceit inherent in the desire to plan the lives of others; second, the force necessary to impose that plan on unwilling subjects. This is not a formula for freedom but for tyranny. – Jim Peron in The Ideals of TyrannyThere is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. – Ayn Rand, LA Times, 9/2/62
Quote from: Gaspar on March 26, 2010, 02:35:44 PM
Interesting.
My wife and I own a business. My community does not own it.
I take it you are not part of the community, then? If we all own businesses, we all own part of the means of production. Our little part.
You know, "in the community as a whole," as opposed to "concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or government."
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 04:42:04 PM
I take it you are not part of the community, then? If we all own businesses, we all own part of the means of production. Our little part.
You know, "in the community as a whole," as opposed to "concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or government."
You're not getting it, but that's ok.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 26, 2010, 04:43:20 PM
You're not getting it, but that's ok.
I could have written that post about you. ;)
Who was it calling people "pussies" on another topic here? Oh, yeah....one of the more conservatives.
Palin just can't quite bring herself to call names. Too many syllables to all the good names. Socialist. Communist. Pussy. Baby Killer. Traitor.
All those letters.... oh, my Gawd!!
No wonder she couldn't finish the job Alaska elected her to do. The stress of using all those letters was just too much.
And wasn't she saying something about "family values" here a year or two ago? And then working overtime to keep the "evil" father of her grandchild from seeing his child. Yeah, that's the Palin family values - sounds kind of like the Adam's Family Values. Without the humor.
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 02:09:42 PM
Are those goals not the ideal of the entire nation?
No
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 28, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
No
So what's all that about expanding homeownership and encouraging small business that comes from both the Democrats and Republicans?
Quote from: nathanm on March 28, 2010, 10:57:32 PM
So what's all that about expanding homeownership and encouraging small business that comes from both the Democrats and Republicans?
I don't believe it involves the community owning and controlling the means of production and distribution of capital, land etc.
If you want to sell your house, the "community" tells you that you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, etc who you sell to but does not say you must sell it to a particular person/entity.
If you own a business, you have to share the benefits of your success in paying taxes. The community does not tell you to sell to Joe and not Jake. The community does not help sweep your floors or clean your toilets.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 28, 2010, 11:16:16 PM
I don't believe it involves the community owning and controlling the means of production and distribution of capital, land etc.
If you want to sell your house, the "community" tells you that you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, etc who you sell to but does not say you must sell it to a particular person/entity.
If you own a business, you have to share the benefits of your success in paying taxes. The community does not tell you to sell to Joe and not Jake. The community does not help sweep your floors or clean your toilets.
The community is a group of individuals.
The alternatives are state control or control by an oligarchy.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2010, 12:40:00 AM
The community is a group of individuals.
The alternatives are state control or control by an oligarchy.
Nathanm,
You really aren't getting it. What Red and I are saying is that the system we operate under is not socialism. Yes there are an increasing number of socialist programs and principals that have crept into our current system. This is natural, it's the natural evolution of government to degrade into socialism over time, and then be reborn.
Many, especially the young, find themselves in agreement with Socialist philosophy, and again this is part of the natural progression of governments. Across the span of history we have come to understand that all free forms of governance where the people are empowered by the right to vote eventually collapse. Once the people learn that they obtain funds, and redistribute wealth through the power of their vote, they begin to vote for the candidates who promise the most benefit from the public treasury. As those candidates become increasingly liberal, and entitlement programs become more progressive, the population in general becomes more dependent.
The framers of our constitution understood this, and put in safeguards that have slowed the progress, but these too are being eroded. I'm doubtful that we are wise enough or disciplined enough to preserve a free society for ever, but we must try, and that battle takes place in the mind. Understanding this cycle is the first step.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - (mostly attributed to ) Tyler
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2010, 12:40:00 AM
The community is a group of individuals.
The alternatives are state control or control by an oligarchy.
I believe that control by the community is nearly the equivalent of state control. The community may choose to support a business but not be part of the control of that business beyond as Gaspar said about not purchasing the goods or services of a business.
Things like polution control are part of either state or community control that protect the community. Beyond protecting the community from potential harm caused by a person or business, I don't believe the community as a group should control the individuals/businesses that make up that community.