Slashdot Mirror


McCain Decries "Hobbits," Accused of Ringbearing

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "Senator McCain decried Tea Party 'Hobbits' on Wednesday for their failure to support the GOP's debt deal, at times reading from a WSJ editorial that began the analogy. The Tea Party fired back, with a prominent member noting on CNN that McCain had been corrupted by the ring of power. The full text of his floor remarks should be in the Congressional Record later today."

30 of 722 comments (clear)

  1. Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

    No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

      No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

      The TEA Party wants LESS government power, not more. Think of them as "Fiscal Libertarians".

      So, if they are corrupt, as you say, wouldn't that means they want MORE government power? I think you got it backwards.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You gotta be fucking kidding me. There is nothing simple, wholesome, grassroots, or legitimate about any teaparty candidate. It's an image that's been sold to you and nothing else. These people did not "decide to get involved" there were handpicked by rich conservative interests to front for extreme pro-business and pro-wealthy agenda.

      Recent effective uncapping of campaign contributions let private investors buy elections with unrelenting media saturation. You just don't care to question where the money came from. Nobody has ever been to a teaparty fundraiser.

      Their voting record reveals the truth. Complete lockstep, unwavering synchronization. Zero deviation among the ranks of a group of people that are supposed to be 'grassroots', 'mavericks', and 'fiercely independent'. They're employees, not politicians.

      Fake politics, fake people, fake values, fake truth. This is the modern republicanism. Real conservatives are gone.

    3. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tea Party supporters are living a fairy tale, but continuing to spend 40% more than you makes all the sense in the world?

      I see.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  2. Smeagol by vawwyakr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol. I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People complain about government spending but then seem to forget that a large % of the US is employeed (directly or indirectly) by the government. You YANK that out all at once and I think we'll be reminiscing about the good old days of only 10% unemployment.

    1. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Forcing a default on the US government, sending massive shockwaves through the global economy, which is already trying to deal with a potential partial Eurozone meltdown, that's not a sensible solution. That's the solution that self-destructive nihilists would take. It's almost like a financial Armageddon cult has taken over Congress.

      And Obama, well, he gets the chance to do a number of things, including the 14th Amendment stunt, and look like the calm, collected rational president, just like when Bill Clinton outmanoeuvred House Republicans. I'm sure Clinton has told Obama that if he gives the Republicans enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Smeagol by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have to deal with it fast, but if you deal with it the TEA party way, what we'll end up is exactly what the US founding fathers rebelled against: A thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath them to shove around as they deem fit. This is essentially what you end up with if your solution is to reduce tax to next to nothing and thus take away the government's ability to actually govern. If you want that, ok. But unless you are one of the thin layer, I definitely doubt that you really want that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The solution is a compromise, accept some tax increases and then work towards a rational solution. Pulling the pin on the hand grenade will help US interests how?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Oh McCain by redemtionboy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Right, the Tea Party is the "Villain" here when the plan you support only cuts $1 Billion from this years budget and still adds $7 Trillion to our debt over 10 years. Anyone that thinks republicans are being extreme here in wanting cuts doesn't realize that no one is actually cutting anything. All of their cuts come years down the road after congress has completely changed and the successors have no obligation to keep the word of the predecessors. This whole Reid vs Boener plan is one of the biggest bunch of garbage smoke and mirrors dance we've ever seen in the US. It's just people yelling about ideals that no one actually backs up.

  4. Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

    And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

    Too bad government isn't voluntary, or the national debt would be a small fraction of GDP.

    1. Re:Easy enough by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

    2. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

      If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?

      The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.

      If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.

      It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Easy enough by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone thinks some of government should be cut.

      No one agrees on what that some should be.

      That's the entire problem.

    4. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Isn't that ironic, that people like you leave comments like yours and get moderated up like in this case while talking about the government in USA, a country, where people came to for freedoms?

      Freedoms, as in freedoms from government.

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.

      Today, with government being what it is, USA became what it became, and people have to leave the country to search for those very ideals that their forebears left other countries to come to USA for? I suppose it does makes sense to do that for the folks who were unfortunate enough to be born in US in this time, the time of the great government involvement and destruction of freedoms.

      I invite everybody to think about moving to freer nations, there are nations like that. On the other hand I am sure some people would rather try to save theirs, but it doesn't seem that there is a peaceful way of doing it.

    5. Re:Easy enough by Jiro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... the result being that Congressmen will be people who either are independently wealthy, or are doing backdoor deals which will get them lots of pay, benefits, and retirement money.

      Of course that happens anyway, but you really don't want to encourage it even more.

    6. Re:Easy enough by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started. In the 20th century we became a super power due to massive infrastructure investments giving us our highway system and DARPA helped us build the Internet as we know it today. Sorry, government played a huge part in all of that. Everything from establishing minimal wage to setting fire codes help improve the way of life of every American and not just the robber barrens of the 19th century.

      I don't see anyone leaving this country because they feel the government is too oppressive, if they did I'm not sure where they would go since Europe has a lot of the same policies, Asia is even tighter on freedom of expression and Africa is filled with strike. I guess that leaves Australia? While full of nice people and hot aussie chicks, they too have been spying on their citizens and doing the same things as our government including failed regulation leading to a massive oil spill off of their shores. So I guess that leaves Antarctica? Of course there are our dear friends to the north but Canada has its problems too, the grass is always greener on the other side. So I guess I have trouble picturing what a freer nation is. There aren't many nations out there where you will pay less in taxes, usually twice as much and don't forget the artificially low cost of gas here.

    7. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please don't mention Switzerland. Despite living there, you have no clue what "economic freedoms" means. The only economic freedom you care about is the one to reduce the taxes you pay.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    8. Re:Easy enough by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "lowest taxes in the developed world" isn't quite true when you take into account state and local taxes.

      However, I would say that the real problems are in the "My road project in my town" group. While the states have broad powers to tax, for some reason the argument has stuck that only the federal government can come up with the money for certain things. The federal government should not be funding the states, and any such funding should be cut. The states should administer their own taxes. When the states have more power, state elections will be even more contested, and better representation will result.

      Social Security should probably be in the federal realm, since plenty of people move after retiring (and thus there's an imbalance of retirees). Medicare/Medicaid is already 50% funded by the states. If individual states really need help with Medicare costs then we can implement a "transfer" similar to the system used in Canada.

      Defense spending certainly does need to be cut. Britain ruled half the world with 125,000 troops. We've got 1.4 million active troops. However, the time would be best spent finding a few large defense projects that can be cut for quick savings, and leaving the rest to an independent committee.

      The Social Security wage base should be removed, so that it applies to all wages, not just the first $100K.

      My bet is that if all that was done, overall taxes would still go up, but federal taxes might actually go down. Some laws would also change, without the threat of losing federal funding, states might be less willing to implement federal programs (e.g. drinking age at 21, abstinence-only education, etc.)

      Federal road tax shouldn't exist either. There are very few federal roads, even the interstates are maintained by the states. They can fund that themselves.

      Direct Payment and Grants to the states total $2 trillion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?year=2010&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    9. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that is what happens when you kill the government, isn't it? Reverting to tribalism or feudalism. The secret hope of right-leaning anarchists is simply that they would come out on top and fill the local warlord position. The secret hope of left-leaning anarchists, on the other hand, is so utopic, that you gotta view Marx as a stone-cold realist in comparison.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    10. Re:Easy enough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.

      My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations. The resources of the Western US (and various marine bodies) untapped (except by the locals who were rather quickly marginalized).

      This behavior also had a number of deleterious effects - raping of resources, the environment (would you want to live in a 19th century urban environment?) and impressive social inequities.

      So, government did step in and attempt to mitigate the hellbent robber baron / beggar they neighbor system. It was partially successful. Yes, we have problems that stem from going the other way - to much regulation, too much governmental control. But your slavish devotion to an anachronistic and time limited system (not much of the West available for plunder at bargain prices) suggests you really haven't looked at some of the finer points in American history.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:Easy enough by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities. There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government. The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant. I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so. Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    12. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities.

      The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk. All other roads should be purely state funded. That would cut our federal highway budget by a substantial amount. Of course, states would have to raise taxes to pay for the building and maintenance of state highways, so it would end up being a wash to the taxpayer. The difference is that my tax dollars would not be going to build a bridge in Minnesota and Michiganders would not be paying for the road that takes me to work. I would actually have more control over which roads are placed where and if my state doesn't think roads are worth maintaining, than we can use the tax dollars saved to repair our cars. It's OUR CHOICE!

      There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government.

      Actually, it is the state government. The state should have taxed the mine enough money to clean up the site. After the site was cleaned up, any left over money should have gone back to the company that owns the mine. This tax refund would encourage the company to be good stewards to begin with. If the state didn't tax that mine to begin with... well that's the state's problem. I'll bet they'll tax it next time! Either way, if I never used coal from a mine in West Virginia, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for the cleanup of a WV coal mine. If I did use that coal, the price would have been inflated to pay the taxes used for the cleanup. Remember, companies don't pay taxes; customers do.

      The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant.

      I don't live in Boston. Billions of federal tax dollars went for the "Big Dig" there. How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it. Why did I help pay for it? Why can't Boston, or the state of Massachusetts pay for that? They are the ones benefiting from it. The state government can do a better job of filling those "very needed purposes" to the people of that state than the federal government can.

      I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so.

      Not the market. State and local government. If the product crosses state lines, then the feds get involved.

      Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.

      You said the magic words, "interstate commerce". If food crosses state lines, it falls under federal regulation. But if I want to sell my world famous tomato sauce at a local farmer's market, the feds should stay out of it. You could say the same for air and water to a lesser extent as both tend to cross state lines. Although, if a city gets its water from a lake, I don't see how the feds could get involved. If a state pollutes a river that flows into another state, that other state should sue the state or company that produces the pollution in federal courts. If pollution from a power plant pollutes another state, the polluted state should sue. However, they would need to prove t

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  5. Re:Well ... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They do. They just went over the budget because they decided to do the war scenes with real extras instead of much cheaper CGI.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, 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 wall when the time comes.

  7. Re:It's OK by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more... What happened in the last election was during the primaries he had to seem like he was far right, after he did that he failed to move to the center very well. Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Left to Center very gracefully.

    We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not, they can hold strong to their convictions however they are not stupidly just holding onto Redirect and take each issue as it comes up. We need to demand more moderates, but the ext reams on both sides have us believe if we elect a moderate the ideals of the party will be compromised away, which isn't true.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. Re:Silly McCain... by RavenChild · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sir, please remove that 1 from your UID. You have been promoted.

  9. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... says the extremist trying to purge the ranks of the Republican party of anyone rational.

  10. States' rights? by Unordained · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All power to the Counties! All power to the Cities! All power to the neighborhoods!

    What is the deal with States, that they're so awesome? Maybe it's because I live in Oklahoma at the moment, but I'm just not seeing it. When we talk about mobility, you have to remember that the reason it's relatively (not absolutely, by a long shot) easy to pick up and move between states is that there's a certain amount of standardization provided by the federal government. Even something as simple as "states must recognize marriages from other states" makes a huge difference in where people could/would move for a job, for economic reasons. And it just goes up from there.

    Also, do you really think the people of Missouri have sufficiently different needs and wants from the people of Oklahoma, that they need different laws? Maybe Utah does, and Texas just needs it for its ego, but really? We're all humans [for now], we're all potential works and employers. You might argue that when economic trouble hits, different regions need different economic policies applied because of local industry variations, but that's not prevented by the federal government; it already doles out money to various industries selectively, affecting regions differently. We decry the International Criminal Court as a violation of our sovereignty, we despise super-national unions like the EU, but really we're just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This far, and no further.

    Are some states "red" and others "blue"? Maybe, but does that mean that we need states that are right next to each other, with either a 49/51 or 51/49 ratio, to be run entirely differently? Do you think that the resulting "sloshing", as people move out of their current states to escape overly-partisan policies, is good for us in the long term? Do you think polarizing our populations even more will solve our problems?

    I realize this is about ideology, whether you believe that we are generally smarter or dumber as a group than as an individual. And I think that it's both, depending on the issue. Maybe we're smarter individually when running a small business, but we're dumber when it comes to planning health insurance, the military, etc. All of that is debatable, and actively debated, and that's healthy. I guess we could just split the union. Two countries. One centralized, one completely decentralized. Tear families apart. Break our economy. Increase tensions. Lose power in the world. And then split again, when each side disagrees on how much centralization is good.

    States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?

  11. Re:It's OK by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more...

    Moderate Republicans aren't hard to find, however most of them call themselves 'Democrats'.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  12. Re:It's OK by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mind stopping to post bullshit until you finally educated yourself enough as to know what an argumentum ad hominem actually is. One tip, numbnuts, this ain't one. This was a straight insult.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.