another childish walkaway from the conversation. Napoleon Complex at its finest. Thats the problem with the Tea Partiers/Libertarians. They are right.... we are wrong and we will fight our view until we're blue in the face. There's no reason...there's no communication...there's no listening to other views.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
To the point. He will never be fired because we live in an era dominated by media.
He presents contrasting issues in a colorful and controversial way.
Thats what TV marketing believes brings in the viewing masses.
ssqnmto100, you said.."Thats the problem with the Tea Partiers/Libertarians. They are right.... we are wrong and we will fight our view until we're blue in the face. There's no reason...there's no communication...there's no listening to other views."
I'm what you would likely consider a "tea partier" thought I'm not active in any group. I'm certainly a libertarian as most would define that term. I'm also a staunch constitutionalist. I've made many an effort to engage my "liberal" or "progressive" friends in discussions so that I can understand thier perspective. I'm typically met with dogma, cliches and sound bites coupled with an inability to engage on the issue at hand. Similarly, I've sought out published materials and web sites to inform myself of the "liberal" perspective, not as recharacterized by the right, but as originally stated by members of that fold. I'm almost never persuaded to any degree whatsoever.
As for Mr. Santelli, I did not see what you are referring too. I will point out however that human nature dictates that the vehemence of an argument will be directly correlated to the importance of the subject matter. When a human being is convinced of the accuracy of their position and is equally convinced of the direness of the issue, it is to be expected that he/she "will fight our view until we're blue in the face." I have seen Santilli on multiple occassions argue with Liesman and others on CNBC. He is assertive, but he certainly lets the other party have his/her say.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Sequestration = 8% across the board reduction in spend.
Sequestration = deal the Congress created and passed as law.
Sequestration = ZERO support from all Congressional factions.
WTH happened? ZERO support? For a bill they passed?
If NO ONE will support an 8% across the board reduction in spending, while many claim it will take a 15% across the board reduction in spending, then we need to look elsewhere for revenue, right?
Side note on Tea Partier's...if they were around in the great depression, they would have said the same things about Roosevelt and WW2 spend-a-thon. IMO, the Tea Party was a tool of the right wing of the REEP party that then grew on their own and thought they had easy answers for the budget solution. Did they RE...I'm doing this for my kids, yet I'm willing to allow the continued dumping of more and more green house gases into the air...adding up to the most expensive fix that will ever happen, if at all.
Bravo Savzak ...
Very succinct overview of the "problem"! And, your assessment of Santelli's emotion is spot on! He has 3 daughters and he said the fight is worth having and his children will thank him for it!
I was a teacher and, believe me, I tried to gain insight into the more liberal point of view only to be met with criticism that I was cold and unfeeling, when anyone who truly knows me, would agree is about as far from the truth as it gets! I've found that when a Conservative/Libertarian argues a point, it is often turned into a personal attack ... note the frequency of the word racist in current politics!
I've never seen the country more divided and I don't see any remedy for it in the near future, sadly!
Have a good day, and ... go SQNM!
What he was objecting to was the reference to those who wanted more cuts in the fiscal cliff deal being referred to as "lunatics"! His frustration is with those that paint anyone with a differing view as some sort of "fringe element" or "extreme"!
Borrowing .46 on every $$ spent is NOT lunacy?