I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.
For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.
And of course, by then it will be too late.
If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the w
By "Dark Side" I mean, widespread implementation of Tea Party ideals in US government is not in the best interest of most members of the Tea Party, any more than victory by the Empire was in the long term interests of the Jedi.
My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.
Another aspect of the Jedi comparison which did not occur to me originally but I think is interesting is eventually you reach a
Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
That's...universal, and not really a dark side.
My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.
Then why have government redistribution? Just have people pay for what they use in a market system.
Call me a cynic if you will, but how much do you think the winner of the next presidential election will effect those people's lives?
Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
I think of it more as, Dark Side means, "think about why you are wishing for a particular outcome; do the people pointing you towards a particular outcome have a hidden agenda?"
The one before that has gotten us into several badly defined wars, and bailed out banks which should have died due to their bad business policy.
For the most part what the current president has done was strictly reactionary for the given situation (wars, economy, etc.). In the same situation, with the same Congress, I don't think the world would be a much different place if McCain had won.
As for the previous president, in the end we got expansions of the size of government (in terms of jobs), the size of government (in terms of the economy), the size of government (in terms of citizens' lives and personal privacy). And this was with the guy from the supposedly small-government party.
Think things would have been much different if the guy from the supposedly big-government party had won?
Does the war in Iraq happen if Gore carries his home state? Probably not. But what will have the bigger lasting effect on the American people: the particular names at the top in Baghdad oppressing the Iraqi people? Or the deconstruction of the American economy to deal with overwhelming federal debt?
I say the debt. And I say, that debt happens anyway, even without the war in Iraq.
I'm not a conspiracy nut (which I realize is the first thing I would say if I was a conspiracy nut), but just look at the facts of the previous presidency.
Under Bush we a new cabinet-level department in the federal government, expansion of socialized medicine, the unprecedented bail out. They were actually loading up cargo planes with pallets full of cash to send to Iraq.
The one common thread in every policy enacted under Bush, the guiding principle of the Republican Party--if I was to divine such a thing from past actions--is to downplay to the extreme the cost of any action, and then spend spend spend! like crazy when given the chance.
If you ask Republicans, they say they are for smaller federal government, more responsible economic policies, balanced budgets, lower debt. Then they vote for the exact opposite. How do you explain that?
Are the majority of Republicans idiots, who just keep voting for the wrong people? Were the Jedi idiots, who just kept fighting for a sith lord?
I'm sure the Jedi did not think they were idiots, but look how that turned. I'm sure Republicans don't think they are idiots, but how is that working out?
And before the Republicans jump on me, I could say the very same about Democrats. And that's my point. When you realize the same sith load is behind the empire and the rebels, the question of "which side are you on" takes on a new meaning.
The powers-that-be, both Republican and Democratic, are purposely destroying the US economy so it can be rebuilt, the same way the galactic federation was destroyed to be rebuilt as an empire.
So to go back to the Tea Party/Jedi analogy: if that is the case, if both "sides" in the US government are both working towards the same end, where does the Tea Party fit in?
This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.
For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.
And of course, by then it will be too late.
If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the w
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, Tea Partier here.
What "Dark Side"?
And what makes you so confident that this isn't the case for your side?
Re: (Score:2)
By "Dark Side" I mean, widespread implementation of Tea Party ideals in US government is not in the best interest of most members of the Tea Party, any more than victory by the Empire was in the long term interests of the Jedi.
My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.
Another aspect of the Jedi comparison which did not occur to me originally but I think is interesting is eventually you reach a
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
That's...universal, and not really a dark side.
My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.
Then why have government redistribution? Just have people pay for what they use in a market system.
Call me a cynic if you will, but how much do you think the winner of the next presidential election will effect those people's lives?
It
Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! (Score:2)
Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
I think of it more as, Dark Side means, "think about why you are wishing for a particular outcome; do the people pointing you towards a particular outcome have a hidden agenda?"
The one before that has gotten us into several badly defined wars, and bailed out banks which should have died due to their bad business policy.
For the most part what the current president has done was strictly reactionary for the given situation (wars, economy, etc.). In the same situation, with the same Congress, I don't think the world would be a much different place if McCain had won.
As for the previous president, in the end we got expansions of the size of government (in terms of jobs), the size of government (in terms of the economy), the size of government (in terms of citizens' lives and personal privacy). And this was with the guy from the supposedly small-government party.
Think things would have been much different if the guy from the supposedly big-government party had won?
Does the war in Iraq happen if Gore carries his home state? Probably not. But what will have the bigger lasting effect on the American people: the particular names at the top in Baghdad oppressing the Iraqi people? Or the deconstruction of the American economy to deal with overwhelming federal debt?
I say the debt. And I say, that debt happens anyway, even without the war in Iraq.
I'm not a conspiracy nut (which I realize is the first thing I would say if I was a conspiracy nut), but just look at the facts of the previous presidency.
Under Bush we a new cabinet-level department in the federal government, expansion of socialized medicine, the unprecedented bail out. They were actually loading up cargo planes with pallets full of cash to send to Iraq.
The one common thread in every policy enacted under Bush, the guiding principle of the Republican Party--if I was to divine such a thing from past actions--is to downplay to the extreme the cost of any action, and then spend spend spend! like crazy when given the chance.
If you ask Republicans, they say they are for smaller federal government, more responsible economic policies, balanced budgets, lower debt. Then they vote for the exact opposite. How do you explain that?
Are the majority of Republicans idiots, who just keep voting for the wrong people? Were the Jedi idiots, who just kept fighting for a sith lord?
I'm sure the Jedi did not think they were idiots, but look how that turned. I'm sure Republicans don't think they are idiots, but how is that working out?
And before the Republicans jump on me, I could say the very same about Democrats. And that's my point. When you realize the same sith load is behind the empire and the rebels, the question of "which side are you on" takes on a new meaning.
The powers-that-be, both Republican and Democratic, are purposely destroying the US economy so it can be rebuilt, the same way the galactic federation was destroyed to be rebuilt as an empire.
So to go back to the Tea Party/Jedi analogy: if that is the case, if both "sides" in the US government are both working towards the same end, where does the Tea Party fit in?