Tea-Partiers misuse tactics, spread disunity
Adam Schneider
Issue date: 3/11/10 Section: Opinion
There's nothing that annoys me more than someone who has no idea what they're talking about and hates on people who disagree with them. That sentence seems pretty loaded and it should.
I'm talking about the small, yet media-consuming "Tea Partiers."
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for the First Amendment. But is it too much to ask for someone to tell the truth? I'll admit I am a Democrat who supports the President and most of his policies. But I think my criticism is well founded.
I believe there is quite a bit of miscommunication in this debate. It would seem people are using certain words with their own definitions instead of Merrian-Webster's.
Some examples would be: socialism, communism, and antichrist, etc. I even saw a picture that had a picture of the President with "Obamunism" above his head.
So what is Socialism? The goal of socialism is to give everyone an equal opportunity to develop and use his or her talents to their fullest extent. Wait! That sounds...almost reasonable. Where's the part about government controlling our lives? Well...it's not there.
Get this--another goal, according to the experts, is for everyone to have a voice in their affairs.
Am I advocating socialism?
I wouldn't go that far. I like competition. I prefer capitalism with a few socialistic programs (public roads, fire/police departments, etc). The only thing I want is for everyone to be on the same page.
Another point of contention is the use of "facts." It's sad that I had to use quotation marks around the word. I saw another sign (that seems to be how Tea Partiers get their message across) that said, "Repeal the Pork or Retire." Pork barrel spending sucks, yet it's necessary to get Congressmen to vote certain ways on bills.
So the Tea Partiers think that it should be cut out and that would free up a lot of money to spend elsewhere or cut their taxes. But, they're misinformed.
According to Geoffrey Pike, pork-barrel spending totaled $13.2 billion in the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts.
This is less than one half of one percent of the total federal budget. Looking at the benefits, is it a worthy suggestion that we end pork barrel spending?
Sure. Is it okay to exaggerate the facts because it makes you fit in with the sign-toting, Obama-hating crowd? I don't think that's acceptable and neither should you.
By Adam Schneider
Contributor
aschneid@capital.edu
I'm talking about the small, yet media-consuming "Tea Partiers."
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for the First Amendment. But is it too much to ask for someone to tell the truth? I'll admit I am a Democrat who supports the President and most of his policies. But I think my criticism is well founded.
I believe there is quite a bit of miscommunication in this debate. It would seem people are using certain words with their own definitions instead of Merrian-Webster's.
Some examples would be: socialism, communism, and antichrist, etc. I even saw a picture that had a picture of the President with "Obamunism" above his head.
So what is Socialism? The goal of socialism is to give everyone an equal opportunity to develop and use his or her talents to their fullest extent. Wait! That sounds...almost reasonable. Where's the part about government controlling our lives? Well...it's not there.
Get this--another goal, according to the experts, is for everyone to have a voice in their affairs.
Am I advocating socialism?
I wouldn't go that far. I like competition. I prefer capitalism with a few socialistic programs (public roads, fire/police departments, etc). The only thing I want is for everyone to be on the same page.
Another point of contention is the use of "facts." It's sad that I had to use quotation marks around the word. I saw another sign (that seems to be how Tea Partiers get their message across) that said, "Repeal the Pork or Retire." Pork barrel spending sucks, yet it's necessary to get Congressmen to vote certain ways on bills.
So the Tea Partiers think that it should be cut out and that would free up a lot of money to spend elsewhere or cut their taxes. But, they're misinformed.
According to Geoffrey Pike, pork-barrel spending totaled $13.2 billion in the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts.
This is less than one half of one percent of the total federal budget. Looking at the benefits, is it a worthy suggestion that we end pork barrel spending?
Sure. Is it okay to exaggerate the facts because it makes you fit in with the sign-toting, Obama-hating crowd? I don't think that's acceptable and neither should you.
By Adam Schneider
Contributor
aschneid@capital.edu
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Karl
posted 3/11/10 @ 10:14 AM EST
I had a hard time taking this article seriously because it is so poorly written. Shouldn't an institution of higher education showcase writers who have mastered proper grammar? This writer needs to clear his throat, look into the camera and humbly admit, "I am not smarter than a 5th grader. (Continued…)
Kevin
posted 3/12/10 @ 10:47 AM EST
Good letter, Adam.
EJH
posted 3/12/10 @ 2:23 PM EST
Karl demonstrates the expression "not seeing the forest for the trees" excellently. Beyond parts of speech and punctuation, there is a theme which is worth more than the sum of its parts. (Continued…)
Post a Comment