Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership....
Now to be fair, the head of the Dallas GOP quickly denounced Broden's statement. And I'm inclined to give the head of the Dallas GOP the benefit of the doubt in the sincerity of his denouncement. That sure as hell doesn't obviate the fact that these insane views are pervasive throughout the Tea Party. These militia movements would normally be held to the fringe, but in today's economic climate they get a chance to ride the populist wave and actually get on the ballot. How can any one of us not listen to what these people are saying and shudder?
If you're looking for other examples you could do no better than Joe Miller, Tea Party candidate from Alaska.
And here's Daniel Webster. Aside from Broden (who is actually proposing sedition make no mistake), I view Webster as just a shade less dangerous. His views on religion are squarely in the realm of fundamentalist. I that regard alone, I would really, really, not like to have this guy as my Senator.
What can be said about Christine O'Donnell that hasn't already be said? The perpetual Senate candidate with no actual legislative experience (this is what, her third attempted run for Senate?), doesn't think that evolution is a viable theory for the origin of mankind, wants to repeal the Health Care Reform law, and thinks that welfare and food stamps encourages laziness and drug use. You would think that in between tilts at the windmill she would, oh I don't know, actually try to get some experience at doing the job she's trying to get elected for.
You've also got Mike Church, an extremely popular right-wing extremist satellite radio talk show host. From his site:
Read his point #5 and then ask yourself, how can I guy that purports to believe so heavily in a literal (i.e., RAW) reading of the Constitution advocate for the states to have the power to actually secede from the Union. The Constitution allows states to be formed and join the Union, it doesn't allow them to leave. Hell, we even fought a war over that point.
I look forward to the false equivalencies, cognitive dissonance, and rationalizations sure to follow
*shrug* Its not really unexpected for this election set. You have a prolonged economic crisis which always generates a backlash against incumbents, regardless of party. The problem is more pronounced because the minority party (i.e. the Republicans) is in the middle of an identity crisis. The RNC has failed to define a succinct platform and agenda for this campaign season and so local Republican parties have been setting up their own "ideal" candidates who conform to all their economic AND social views. The problem now is that by over reacting and running candidates who are much more conservative than normal, moderate Republican voters and independant voters are going to end up supporting Democrat candidates because they are ideologically closer to them. If the RNC had simply chosen to run on an economic platform, you would probably see a much closer election and possibly even see the Democrats lose control of one of the houses. Instead, I wouldn't expect to see a significant shift because the Republicans have panicked a bit too much by crying that everything is wrong with the Democrats and shifting the election points in favor of a conserative base that would have voted Republican regardless of who the Republican candidate was instead of making in-roads with the moderate Republican and independant voters that could swing the election in their favor.
Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.
Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.
Er...no
-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.
Kilkrazy wrote:Why do they keep banging on about creationism?
Some of them do. Just like some bang on about nonsense like aborting two year old babies in the Democratic Party. Every party, every group has its wing nuts. I just want to be their leader, or at least capable of making demands on organizations with deep pockets, lest I use my power over hordes of wingnuts...
Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.
Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.
I doubt very much (lots of doubt here, if my doubt were a mountain it would be... a very large mountain) that the tea party will ever (read: never ever) cooperate with the Democratic Party on anything (nothing, nada, zip, zero, zulch).
Your understanding is so far from the actual truth of the matter that I am tempted to believe you're trolling.
These people are batty, (insane in the membrane, crazy like a crazy person, bad s*** bonkers, utterly out of touch with reality, lobotomy patients, they are a happy meal short of a happy meal, etc) they don't even agree with the party that spawned them, these are people who have looking into Gleen Becks watery little eyes and seen a light (demonic, unholy, or maybe just crazy... see above for descriptions).
They will never contribute to bipartisanship in Washington.
Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.
Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.
I doubt very much (lots of doubt here, if my doubt were a mountain it would be... a very large mountain) that the tea party will ever (read: never ever) cooperate with the Democratic Party on anything (nothing, nada, zip, zero, zulch).
Your understanding is so far from the actual truth of the matter that I am tempted to believe you're trolling.
These people are batty, (insane in the membrane, crazy like a crazy person, bad s*** bonkers, utterly out of touch with reality, lobotomy patients, they are a happy meal short of a happy meal, etc) they don't even agree with the party that spawned them, these are people who have looking into Gleen Becks watery little eyes and seen a light (demonic, unholy, or maybe just crazy... see above for descriptions).
They will never contribute to bipartisanship in Washington.
I would be surprised if more than 3 Tea Party candidates actually make it to Washington. I see alot of them getting defeated in close (4% o 6% difference) races with the swing vote being moderate republicans and independants who choose the Democrat candidate because they are closer to their ideological beliefs. Too many of the Tea Party candidates are trying to campaign on everything instead of two or three key issues and are alienating too many voters in the process.
I have no love of the Tea Party. However, I think despite their fairly divergent opinions and issues within the psuedo-organization and in some instances borderline crackpot views, you have to give them credit.
The reason? They're actually framing a surprising amount of the debate heading into the elections. The economy in general is obviously the most important issue. But the Tea Party has debate occurring around things like government spending and the size of government at a time when JOBS and personal financial security are the 800 lb. gorillas.
Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.
But this is typical Dem behavior. You'd think 8 years of "W" would have taught them that voters often respect you more for defiantly sticking to your opinion even if that opinion isn't popular.
Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.
False equivalencies; Cognitive dissonance; Rationalizations...I forgot to add feigned victimhood.
-Yad
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.
Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.
Er...no
-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.
Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.
-Yad
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Why do they keep banging on about creationism?
Some of them do. Just like some bang on about nonsense like aborting two year old babies in the Democratic Party. Every party, every group has its wing nuts. I just want to be their leader, or at least capable of making demands on organizations with deep pockets, lest I use my power over hordes of wingnuts...
And false equivalencies... you're almost there Frazzled. Now we just need some wide sweeping rationalizations. And if you could turn a blind eye to the statements and positions of those like Broden, Angle, and Webster that would be great too. K'thanks!!
gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.
they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.
There might be rational people invovled with the Tea Party; however, I have not seen one yet. Admitedly this may be due to sensationalist media hounds that prefer to portray them as lunatics, foaming at the mouth.
There's something wrong with people that think republicans are too liberal...
-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...
-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.
Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.
-Yad
How is that cognitive dissonance?
Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...
Because it's quite obvious that you are inclined to vote for the party that has, by leaps and bounds, overseen an explosion in government spending, while decrying the Democratic party for it's spending. That in a nutshell is cognitive dissonance. Hmm, does ''venting diatribe'' fall into the feigned victimhood category
What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.
agnosto wrote:There's something wrong with people that think republicans are too liberal...
Not so much too liberal as just completely useless and ineffective.
Yeah, there's a huge difference.
To those who are just hating on the Tea Party for the sake of being hip, though, there's really no point in making reasoned and logical points. Yes, there are some fools the Tea Party. Surprise. There's wingnuts in every group of people as Frazzled has already aptly pointed out.
olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.
-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.
Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.
-Yad
How is that cognitive dissonance?
Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...
Because it's quite obvious that you are inclined to vote for the party that has, by leaps and bounds, overseen an explosion in government spending, while decrying the Democratic party for it's spending. That in a nutshell is cognitive dissonance. Hmm, does ''venting diatribe'' fall into the feigned victimhood category
-Yad
1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties. 2. The Tea Party did not begin forming until the last years of the Bush Presidency. Please explain to me how they oversaw an explosion in government spending, while controlling neither the House or US Presidency?
That in a nutshell is...ignorance.
olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.
olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.
Also it helps to videotape them for our popcorn munching amusement.
olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.
What kind of fundamentalists are they?
Anti-masturbatorialists among others.
So you are busting balls, then.
Clearly, taking a select few people from a movement made up of millions isn't something a reasonable person would actually do. Right?
I am happy that Ms. O'donnel gets so much airtime though. She certainly is amusing.
My personal opinion is that both major parties have contributed equally to the downward spiral of the economy and the nation as a whole. Their respective ideologies are so far apart that there can be no "crossing the isle" on anything because they are afraid of losing the support of their base.
In fact, neither party fairly represents your average American citizen. Unfortunately we, as a whole, have never been able to break the whole Federalist/Anti-Federalist nonsense and move on. When Republicans go on and on about "big government" they're mouthing the same mantra that's been going on since Madison and Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party around 1792 which later became the modern Republican party after a few evolutions.
Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.
The Tea Party is a tiny but verbal segment that has had enough of the politics as usual. The vast majority of involved individuals seem to be ultra-conservatives though which just makes them a different flavor of the Republican party.
My final point for this rant is the office of the President and how one of the responsibilities of the President is to go out and stump for his party every election. As his employer, it pisses me off; he needs to get his butt back to D.C. and work, not travel the country trying to look out for people in his party. The President should not be beholden to any one party as he is supposedly the leader of the entire nation, not just those that vote Democrat or Republican.
-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.
Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.
-Yad
How is that cognitive dissonance?
Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...
Because it's quite obvious that you are inclined to vote for the party that has, by leaps and bounds, overseen an explosion in government spending, while decrying the Democratic party for it's spending. That in a nutshell is cognitive dissonance. Hmm, does ''venting diatribe'' fall into the feigned victimhood category
-Yad
1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties. 2. The Tea Party did not begin forming until the last years of the Bush Presidency. Please explain to me how they oversaw an explosion in government spending, while controlling neither the House or US Presidency?
That in a nutshell is...ignorance.
When you quote the Tea Party manifesto, which is a basic regurgitation of Republican talking points, I take it to mean that's what you support. The only difference I see between you and the GOP/Tea Party is belief in some mythical 'free market'.
gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.
they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.
1.) Really, cause when I go to questions.medicare.gov and check for what coverage is provided for mammogram screenings I see that for women over the age of 40 they are covered for a x1 per 12 months.
Most people will not see a tax increase. Those earning more than $200,000 individually ($250,000 as a married couple) and those with high-premium insurance plans will see tax increases. High earners need to pay 0.9% more in Medicare taxes.The total Medicare payroll tax rate will be 2.35%. The current rate is 1.45%. The tax rate will apply to unearned income, such as dividends and capital gains. Taxpayers who get high-premium insurance plans from their employers, which some think are a luxury, will need to pay a ”Cadillac Tax.” If your employer plan exceeds $8,500 for a single person or $23,000 for a family in premiums per year, you could be stuck with that tax.
McDonald’s offers a ’mini-med’ plan, also known as a limited benefit plan.These plans are in some ways the opposite of insurance: they pay for routine health care expenses but not catastrophic ones. Benefits are often capped at $25,000 to $50,000 per year. The McDonald’s plans have even lower caps, in the range of $2,000 to $10,000. Basically, McDonald's offers crap insurance plans.
What really sucks is that minimum wage workers pay into Medicare yet don't get the benefits of the single payer system. The real solution is medicare-for-all healthcare.
gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.
they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.
Missing the point. Or perhaps illustrating it.
You're cherry-picking with the things you named. If you're capable of taking off the partisan hat even a smidge, you'll see there are obviously things within the legislation that the Dems can cherry-pick too. Instead, most are running away from it. But there's nowhere to hide. So IMO the communications strategy (assuming you're running in an area polling strongly against health care reform) ought to be to try to mold the conversation around the issue as best you can. You already know your opponent is going to beat your vote in favor of it into the ground in every bit of advertising they have. Therefore, shift the discussion from the vote itself to some of the features of the legislation that might play with the public. You're probably not going to win the public over on the issue, but you start to blunt your opponent's criticism that way. Running away is the worst thing you can do.
Here in PA the strategy seems to be 85% dire attack ads in an effort to make everyone forget about the real issues. Although I recently saw that our Dem candidate for governor has made some strides in the polls, and part of this surge was credited to a series of ads attacking his opponent on...*GASP*...jobs.
gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.
they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.
1.) Really, cause when I go to questions.medicare.gov and check for what coverage is provided for mammogram screenings I see that for women over the age of 40 they are covered for a x1 per 12 months.
THEN YOU SEE WRONG. Thats what they told my mom.
They also informed my wife's BFF that they were recommending a mammogram every two years instead of one. Had she done that, instewad of chemo her family would be at her funeral.
gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.
they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.
1.) Really, cause when I go to questions.medicare.gov and check for what coverage is provided for mammogram screenings I see that for women over the age of 40 they are covered for a x1 per 12 months.
THEN YOU SEE WRONG. Thats what they told my mom.
They also informed my wife's BFF that they were recommending a mammogram every two years instead of one. Had she done that, instewad of chemo her family would be at her funeral.
I can't pretend to know the specifics of your mom's situation, but:
And in most tallies so far dems are doing better or the same and repubs in early voting.
My issue with the tea party. They are good at wailing aginst things, but what are they gonna replace them with? Start over on health care? They didn't even start last time. Stop building things close to the twin towers? Yeah that's gonna fix the economy.Ask mexicans for papers? that's gonna help too! End public school funding, great! No more min wage awesome, I've always wanted to work for 2 bucks an hour. You know what some of our ideas us Dems had didn't work as good as we hoped but at least we had ideas. The other side was busy trying to call it everything but what it was (economic downturn, slowdown, bumpy ride). I'd rather go with a bad idea than no idea at all.
Obama may be the most spineless person of my race, and the dems may be a bunch of droopy vaginas, But I'll take a droopy vagina over a bunch of cocks any day.
All women with Medicare age 40 and older can get a screening mammogram every 12 months. Medicare also pays for one baseline mammogram for women with Medicare between ages 35 and 39.
Your costs in the Original Medicare Plan?
You pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount with no Part B deductible.
1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.
Yeah... that's wrong. Republicans are still right of libertarians. Socially liberal, with an emphasis on individual choices and freedoms and fiscally conserative, with an emphasis on minimal government intrusion. The majority of conserative Republicans have a very prescriptive philosophy that is opposed to the individual freedoms desired by libertarians.
Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.
After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.
But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.
Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.
You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.
1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.
Yeah... that's wrong. Republicans are still right of libertarians.
I don't think I said that wrong. Let me try to clarify. If you place the Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right of the classic American political spectrum, traditional liberatarian views fall in the center. They are much closer on economic and size of government issues to the Republican party but fall significantly closer to the Democrats on social issues---albeit for different reasons. The social liberalism of liberatarian views is grounded in a fundamental belief in individual freedoms and what the government cannot regulate instead of the Democratic party lines of fairness and equality.
Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.
After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.
But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.
Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.
You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.
I agree the Tea Partyists are screwing the Republicans royally. However, it stands to reason that at some point one or more Tea Partyists will win an election. Vindication can make a political movement gain LOTS of momentum. A nation rife for decisive action can have a very dramatic effect on how that entity can or will become.
Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.
After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.
But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.
Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.
You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.
I agree the Tea Partyists are screwing the Republicans royally. However, it stands to reason that at some point one or more Tea Partyists will win an election. Vindication can make a political movement gain LOTS of momentum. A nation rife for decisive action can have a very dramatic effect on how that entity can or will become.
A political movement with no actual politics or policies will be demolished by actual power though. It's hard to be blankly anti establishment anti "everything people don't like" and pro "everything people like" when you're put into power. You start to realize that your platform is utterly conflicting, ridiculous, and idiotic. At that point you either just pretend (which is likely) or start to act within the establishment. Or really, what is most likely is that they'll pretend while acting within the establishment. Essentially being republicans.
Actual power would destroy the tea party, it's entire point is rallying against power through ignorant and conflicting populist viewpoints.
Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.
After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.
But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.
Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.
You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.
ShumaGorath wrote:A political movement with no actual politics or policies will be demolished by actual power though. It's hard to be blankly anti establishment anti "everything people don't like" and pro "everything people like" when you're put into power. You start to realize that your platform is utterly conflicting, ridiculous, and idiotic. At that point you either just pretent (which is likely) or start to act within the establishment.
Actual power would destroy the tea party, it's entire point is rallying against power through ignorant and conflicting populist viewpoints.
And be wary of those political parties that do come to power like that.
Know-Nothing Party garnered a remarkable 21.6% for their presidential canidate in 1856 in the popular vote and was based on fearmongering and hatred.
Progressive Party of 1912 was essentially an "I hate Taft" party when Roosevelt decided to split from the Republicans and fight for the presidency, effectively handing the Democrats the White House.
They came close to getting some power, but thanks to some lucky breaks, a third party of nut-jobs or populists have not gained power in any greater significance than the two national parties.
Tea Party Patriots wrote:As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
God, I love this. The phrase "Of the people, by the people, for the people" doesn't imply individual liberty, it implies democratic governance of a collective group. That governance might involve liberty, if the people want liberty, but there's no reason that they must desire that.
Tea Party Patriots wrote:
Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty.
I love this too. The market is always distorted when considered moment to moment. The 'free market' only flattens out distortion over an extended period of time, which is how all chaotic processes function.
Tea Party Patriots wrote:As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
God, I love this. The phrase "Of the people, by the people, for the people" doesn't imply individual liberty, it implies democratic governance of a collective group. That governance might involve liberty, if the people want liberty, but there's no reason that they must desire that.
And the government is, unless I'm missing something fundamentally important, made up of "people" who were elected by "people" who ostensibly do serve the "people."
Tea Party Patriots wrote:As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
God, I love this. The phrase "Of the people, by the people, for the people" doesn't imply individual liberty, it implies democratic governance of a collective group. That governance might involve liberty, if the people want liberty, but there's no reason that they must desire that.
Tea Party Patriots wrote: Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty.
I love this too. The market is always distorted when considered moment to moment. The 'free market' only flattens out distortion over an extended period of time, which is how all chaotic processes function.
Well, it is their interpretation of a statement made hundreds of years ago from a group of people with a different set of values from the people who are using them today.
No different from other groups of people who use words or symbols with a distorted context from their prior meaning.
Monster Rain wrote:
And the government is, unless I'm missing something fundamentally important, made up of "people" who were elected by "people" who ostensibly do serve the "people."
Or am I mistaken, somehow?
The key thing is the word "the". When you say "the people" you are referring to a group. When you say "people" you are referring to individuals.
Phrased as you have above it implies both democratic governance, and liberty. Though that leaves us with the question: Is the government then allowed to infringe on the liberty of people to choose a non-libertarian government?
Phrased as it is in the Tea Party Patriots mission statement it only implies democratic government, which means that the government exists to serve the collective, not all members of it.
dogma wrote:Though that leaves us with the question: Is the government then allowed to infringe on the liberty of people to choose a non-libertarian government?
By us do you mean everyone or do you mean in the context of the Tea Party who is subject to interpreting what they mean by their statement?
Basically I'm trying to illustrate how you can have government focused on the popular will, or you can have a government focused on liberty. You can't have one focused on both.
Obviously this means that, in practice, its all a balancing act based on political expedience, rather than any commitment to principles.
Basically I'm trying to illustrate how you can have government focused on the popular will, or you can have a government focused on liberty. You can't have one focused on both.
Obviously this means that, in practice, its all a balancing act based on political expedience, rather than any commitment to principles.
Hmmm...so could you have something like popular liberty, where you give the most liberty to the most people?
WarOne wrote:Hmmm...so could you have something like popular liberty, where you give the most liberty to the most people?
That is probably the closest approximation to what the Founder's intended posted so far. Several times in the Federalist papers the Founders warn explicitly against foregoing the "tyranny of the majority" (i.e. following a strict popular will) in favor of protecting the rights of the minority. Now, minority in this case meant different political opinions among white males and nothing on ethnic, racial or gender lines but the idea can be extrapolated and interpreted easily enough to fit today's society and its needs. Just because 55% of the population believes something is right does not give the government the right to implement that solution---particularly if it would violate the individual rights and freedoms of the remaining 45%.
I don't think I said that wrong. Let me try to clarify. If you place the Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right of the classic American political spectrum, traditional liberatarian views fall in the center. They are much closer on economic and size of government issues to the Republican party but fall significantly closer to the Democrats on social issues---albeit for different reasons. The social liberalism of liberatarian views is grounded in a fundamental belief in individual freedoms and what the government cannot regulate instead of the Democratic party lines of fairness and equality.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Can the government regulate murder?
Yes. Capital Punishment. Some might argue that gun control laws would in affect be a regulation of murder, or at least the most common tool of murder (other than cars).
Kilkrazy wrote:Do we agree that murder is bad, and therefore should be regulated, and the government has a role in doing this?
An alternate view is that murder is the private concern of individual citizens, and the government has no business sticking its nose in.
Yes, the government can regulate murder. At the minimum, the government is protecting the minority from indiscriminate killing. There is also a compelling state interest to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The general idea in the traditional liberatarian views is that the government shouldn't regulate what individuals do on their private property so long as it does not affect the lives or property of others. The "War on Drugs" is the classic example. If you choose to smoke pot in your house, you are not having an adverse effect on anyone else and the government shouldn't stop you from doing that. However, the government does have a right to say "No driving while high" because you then become a threat to everyone you have to drive past. Liberatarian views also split from the Republican party on other key social issues such as homosexual marriage (it's not the government's business whose doing who), abortion (it's a personal decision and the government shouldn't regulate whether or not you can do it or when you can do it), and the environment (government is responsible for telling property owners what the standards for land use are and then holding individuals and corporations accountable for them).
Kilkrazy wrote:Why do they keep banging on about creationism?
Many republicans love Jesus too bloody much thats why.
I am very afraid of whats going to happen in the US.. It just seems to be filling more and more with wackos. And Obama's election has sent them off the deep end. It certainly wasnt like that when i first went over there in 2000. I have no idea whats going on right now, but have you seen the NY times hardcover list?!
Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking are being trounced in sales by Bill O'Fethhead, Dinesh Desouza, Micheal Savage and Tucker frigging Max.
Says it bloody all to me, in ten years America seems to have transformed from one of my favourite places to live, into a nation with far too many idiots in it.
I for one am hoping that the tea party gets all of its aims, you know, bans abortion, teaches all the kids about Gods magic and Noahs dinosaur ark in science class, ban stem cell research and issue everyone with an assault rifle. That way, my missus will happily up sticks and move for good, and i wont have to argue with her anymore over my refusal to move back to California!
Kilkrazy wrote:Why do they keep banging on about creationism?
Many republicans love Jesus too bloody much thats why.
I am very afraid of whats going to happen in the US.. It just seems to be filling more and more with wackos. And Obama's election has sent them off the deep end. It certainly wasnt like that when i first went over there in 2000. I have no idea whats going on right now, but have you seen the NY times hardcover list?!
Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking are being trounced in sales by Bill O'Fethhead, Dinesh Desouza, Micheal Savage and Tucker frigging Max.
Says it bloody all to me, in ten years America seems to have transformed from one of my favourite places to live, into a nation with far too many idiots in it.
I for one am hoping that the tea party gets all of its aims, you know, bans abortion, teaches all the kids about Gods magic and Noahs dinosaur ark in science class, ban stem cell research and issue everyone with an assault rifle. That way, my missus will happily up sticks and move for good, and i wont have to argue with her anymore over my refusal to move back to California!
To be fair, have you read Sam Harris' new book on the science of morality? He pretty much falls under the idiot category after that one. The entire book is a long testimony to his personal genius and in the end he doesn't even make a coherent argument for how science can provide the answers to ethical problems. Its a really long rehash of the golden rule minus any references to God. At least DeSouza makes a few decent arguments in "What's so Great about Christianity?" that leave you thinking about what he says.
Aye to be fair ive not read it Panzer, but he seems a pretty level headed bloke, im pretty sure i dont need to read it to know that i would rather read anything he writes over anything Bill O Reilly or Tucker bastard Max!
Kilkrazy wrote:Do we agree that murder is bad, and therefore should be regulated, and the government has a role in doing this?
An alternate view is that murder is the private concern of individual citizens, and the government has no business sticking its nose in.
Yes, the government can regulate murder. At the minimum, the government is protecting the minority from indiscriminate killing. There is also a compelling state interest to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The general idea in the traditional liberatarian views is that the government shouldn't regulate what individuals do on their private property so long as it does not affect the lives or property of others. The "War on Drugs" is the classic example. If you choose to smoke pot in your house, you are not having an adverse effect on anyone else and the government shouldn't stop you from doing that. However, the government does have a right to say "No driving while high" because you then become a threat to everyone you have to drive past. Liberatarian views also split from the Republican party on other key social issues such as homosexual marriage (it's not the government's business whose doing who), abortion (it's a personal decision and the government shouldn't regulate whether or not you can do it or when you can do it), and the environment (government is responsible for telling property owners what the standards for land use are and then holding individuals and corporations accountable for them).
Everything would be just hunky dory if we could get ole' G.W. Bush to stop running in so many elections!
I mean come on, how many Democrats have to run against him! It isn't fair!
Poor Democrats, all of them have to run against G.W. Bush and he hasn't even been campaigning since 2004!
I mean he was such a bad president... We may never EVER clean up his mess... all we can do is just keep the Democrats in office FOREVER cause he was so bad, ya know, that it might take Democrats a BILLION MILLION GADJILLION years to clean up the mess....
I mean come on, seriously, remember in 2008? I mean you probably can't cause it was so long ago, the litterally the country was on FIRE, and the water had turned to blood, and the unemployment was almost like 7 percent, I mean only 93% of people could afford ANYTHING!
...and there is ole' G.W. Bush in the whitehouse praying to Hitler-Jesus and raping babies! Don't you remember?
Kilkrazy wrote:Do we agree that murder is bad, and therefore should be regulated, and the government has a role in doing this?
An alternate view is that murder is the private concern of individual citizens, and the government has no business sticking its nose in.
Yes, the government can regulate murder. At the minimum, the government is protecting the minority from indiscriminate killing. There is also a compelling state interest to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The general idea in the traditional liberatarian views is that the government shouldn't regulate what individuals do on their private property so long as it does not affect the lives or property of others. The "War on Drugs" is the classic example. If you choose to smoke pot in your house, you are not having an adverse effect on anyone else and the government shouldn't stop you from doing that. However, the government does have a right to say "No driving while high" because you then become a threat to everyone you have to drive past. Liberatarian views also split from the Republican party on other key social issues such as homosexual marriage (it's not the government's business whose doing who), abortion (it's a personal decision and the government shouldn't regulate whether or not you can do it or when you can do it), and the environment (government is responsible for telling property owners what the standards for land use are and then holding individuals and corporations accountable for them).
I see that the LP view on racial and sexual discrimination is that the government shouldn't do it.
Does that mean it is all right if citizens do it to each other?
Sadly, I think this is the point where the Libertarian platform begins to run into serious issues. The relevant quotes are these:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
The question then becomes how you define forcible action. But the bottom line is that in the classic libertarian views, passive discrimination by individuals and corporations is sanctioned but active discrimination is not. In other words, you can selectively not hire minority candidates because you define that they don't fit into your corporate strategy but you are not allowed interfere with another company that does hire minority workers. It is one of the fairness questions that arises when you value an individual's decision making process as one of the highest benchmarks of freedom.
Why is it wrong to kill someone because you dislike them, but right to deny them employment, medical aid and housing because they are Korean, or Jewish and you dislike Koreans and Jews?
Thank GOD for us gun toting crazy Americans with our faith in country and our pride in our military.... the whole world wants to talk down to America, but should your neighbor kick your ass and take your SH*T, who's the FIRST country you call? ....then you cry about being occupied if we stay, and cry about being abandoned if we go.
If a Tsunami wipes your 3rd world hell-hole off the face of the map, who is the first people on the scene with BILLIONS of dollars in Aid? ... and if we try and help your government we are exploiting your national disaster for political gains, and if we don't try and fix your hell-hole's government we are accused of isolationism...
Damn straight... I don't want to hear about American Imperialism, cuse if we really wanted your SH*T.... we'd have your SH*T. True Faxx!
Now if you don't mind, I am off to the shooting range. I have to sight in my Glock 17 and my AR-15 before the november election. Cheerio D-Bags!
Kilkrazy wrote:That's the point I was trying to get at.
Why is it wrong to kill someone because you dislike them, but right to deny them employment, medical aid and housing because they are Korean, or Jewish and you dislike Koreans and Jews?
The philosophical point is that an individual or a government cannot take someone's life, liberty or property except under extreme circumstances when they threaten someone else's life, liberty or property. I personally do not believe it is right, but the classic libertarian answer would be that while an employer has the right to deny employment for whatever reason, he also has to accept the consequences for all his actions. So if because of his decision to deny someone employment, he ends up being boycotted and losing a considerable amount of money he would be entitled to no redress from the government either.
On the flip side, some of the newer libertarian philosophies are beginning to tackle these problems by defining the quality of a life a person is entitled to. Under these ideas, you begin to see how the central idea that bigotry is repugnant should be applied to all aspects of public life but it hasn't bled into the central ethos yet.
As Panzer said. To me, libertarianism is a very idealistic point of view, and this is coming from an avowed libertarian. But Panzer hit it right on the head.....the government has no right to tell the businesses 'you can't factor race into you decision to employ', because deciding who to hire is the choice of the employer. Who works for him is a right of the employer that the government has no right to interfere in.
However, when people realize that the employer is only hiring white people, and refuses to higher blacks simply because they're black, and thus choose to vote with your wallets and not buy goods or services from the employer in question. As such, it is in the employer's best interest to avoid racism in decisions, and thus racism will become a non-factor without government intervention! The same thing goes for environmental concerns, and other things. If the companies don't do what the people want, they will find people no longer buying from them, and they will be forced to change, or go out of business.
Of course, that is how libertarians like me want things to work. Unfortunately, I've come to realize that most people aren't going to act in that manner, and thus the government has to have some kind of hand in the economy, but I still want to see that hand be as minimal as possible.
Edit: Oh, someone complaining that Republicans/conservatives are evil evil people...hmm, where have we heard this before?
Kilkrazy wrote:That's the point I was trying to get at.
Why is it wrong to kill someone because you dislike them, but right to deny them employment, medical aid and housing because they are Korean, or Jewish and you dislike Koreans and Jews?
The philosophical point is that an individual or a government cannot take someone's life, liberty or property except under extreme circumstances when they threaten someone else's life, liberty or property. I personally do not believe it is right, but the classic libertarian answer would be that while an employer has the right to deny employment for whatever reason, he also has to accept the consequences for all his actions. So if because of his decision to deny someone employment, he ends up being boycotted and losing a considerable amount of money he would be entitled to no redress from the government either.
On the flip side, some of the newer libertarian philosophies are beginning to tackle these problems by defining the quality of a life a person is entitled to. Under these ideas, you begin to see how the central idea that bigotry is repugnant should be applied to all aspects of public life but it hasn't bled into the central ethos yet.
Bigotry will be an age old problem of humans so long as there are divisions in any aspect of life.
For instance, if we as Americans evolve beyond bigotry towards those who fear or hate others based on ethnicity, race, gender, mental capacity, sexual orientation, what happens to those people who actually do fear or hate others? Will they become bigoted against because of their classification as bigots? Will they be shunned and reviled and discriminated against because they refuse/have a hard time accepting those different from them?
Look at sex offenders. For a group of people who have served their time for laws they broke because of their actions, we have seen huge recriminations against them because of what they did. Even if they get out of jail, repent their ways, become cured of their problem, and try to become upstanding members of society again, they will forever be seen as outcasts under the law and by people who know of their status as a sex offender. Many people will be bigoted against sex offenders as a whole because they represent an outcast of society with almost no support or defense against them.
Look at sex offenders. For a group of people who have served their time for laws they broke because of their actions, we have seen huge recriminations against them because of what they did. Even if they get out of jail, repent their ways, become cured of their problem, and try to become upstanding members of society again, they will forever be seen as outcasts under the law and by people who know of their status as a sex offender. Many people will be bigoted against sex offenders as a whole because they represent an outcast of society with almost no support or defense against them.
For the record, sex offenders are a fairly specialized case as far as bigotry goes, and especially in the United States, people can go on to the sex offender registry for even the most minor offense. The fact that you now must register as a sex offender makes it so that anyone who searches for you will know you're a sex offender (regardless of cause), and that leads to the discrimination in question.
I know this is a bit OT, so I'll just link this Economist article which talks about it in depth.
ChrisWWII wrote:For the record, sex offenders are a fairly specialized case as far as bigotry goes, and especially in the United States,
Agreed. However it is a slippery slope when defining people and then marginalizing them for who/what they are.
I'm not saying to accept bigots or sex offenders. Bigots are people with irrational fears or hatred and it could take a life time to overcome if a person believes they can change. Plus being identified as a bigot can darken your reputation for the rest of your life.
As for sex offenders, you must have some cause for concern, as some caused great harm to others. Those sex offenders do need to be watched and protected from the public backlash as they re-enter society. Their condition was inflicted, but under current laws they are free to go once they enter society. However, society rejects and shuns them, even the ones with relatively minor offenses.
They arenh't really free to go anywhere as they have to check in with wherever they are going. This on top of being put on a public list, assuming no one puts things in their yard and the like, saying they are sex offenders. I'm not sure why we let them out of prison if we are just going to keep them in a defacto prison on the outside. The reason society shuns them, even the minor offenses, is because people don't look at the offenses, they just see 'registered sex offender' and call it a day. When a kid who receives oral sex from his 16 year old girlfriend on his 18th birthday (actual case) has to be put on the same list as someone who diddled children there is something wrong.
Ahtman wrote:They arenh't really free to go anywhere as they have to check in with wherever they are going. This on top of being put on a public list, assuming no one puts things in their yard and the like, saying they are sex offenders. I'm not sure why we let them out of prison if we are just going to keep them in a defacto prison on the outside. The reason society shuns them, even the minor offenses, is because people don't look at the offenses, they just see 'registered sex offender' and call it a day. When a kid who receives oral sex from his 16 year old girlfriend on his 18th birthday (actual case) has to be put on the same list as someone who diddled children there is something wrong.
They can go where they please. However, society has now placed restrictions on where they can and cannot go. They can go where they want...they just may end up in jail for not abiding by where society tells them they can and cannot go.
Regulation of the condition of the sex offender has become a chronic weakness of society to excise undesirables from their midst. Arguably, we don’t want these people (sex offenders) to harm others, especially children. That is why we have laws and statures against rape and sexual offenses. But then the society indulges it’s own worst fears. We then want sex offenders to be punished further when they get out of jail. Public outcry over Meagan Kanka’s death demanded Meagan’s Law; a tool used to tell the public about where sex offenders live and move to. Okay, the public got their wish, and now we can track where sex offenders live and go. The federal government also tacked on the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act for good measure to make the issue national and force sex offenders to register for their sexual offenses, including offenses related to consensual teenage sex, failure of parents to stop consensual teenage sex, streaking, mooning, and urinating in public.
However, this was not enough. These people could still go wherever they wanted and possibly commit another sex offender crime. Again the public demanded more action. We now have a string of Jessica’s Laws (named for Jessica Lundsford) across the country at the state and local level that harshly punishes a sex offender in various other ways. While these are geared towards giving sex offenders and reoffenders longer terms in prison, it still did not deal with the public perception of the remaining sex offenders who did not commit another sexual crime. The public then demands more must be done.
In come the recent spat of zoning laws, and here is where we as a community are doing something better than many other locations around the United States that have also enacted such laws. Laws across the country have disabled sex offenders from reintegrating into society. Zoning laws passed against sex offenders restrict them from coming anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 feet from schools, libraries, parks, daycares, playgrounds, public places where children congregate, and public places where children could congregate. As such, sex offenders cannot travel, live, work, or loiter anywhere within these circles of prohibition. They get pushed to the edge of society and in most instances, become homeless. They homeless sex offenders must still abide by laws that they must register where they live or get jailed again. They say nowhere.
If you are restricted to an area and will get arrested for going there, you don't have the freedom to go where you want. The capability of doing something isn't the same as the freedom to do it.
I really don't have an issue with the Sex Offender registry thing.
There's some flaws in the system, sure, but I still think that it's a good idea to keep tabs on potentially dangerous people. I don't know why they don't do it for all violent criminals, to be honest.
Monster Rain wrote:I really don't have an issue with the Sex Offender registry thing.
There's some flaws in the system, sure, but I still think that it's a good idea to keep tabs on potentially dangerous people. I don't know why they don't do it for all violent criminals, to be honest.
Unfortunately those flaws are really huge gaps. If you slept with your 17 year old girlfriend when you were 19, it's statutory rape and you're placed on the sex offender registry. It's not specified that you only had consensual sex with someone a bit younger than you. It only says that you are a sex offender, and people can see that with a quick google search. More importantly, you're not allowed to live within a certain radius of certain location, which means in some suburban areas you literally can not buy a house. THey likely won't be able to get a job, due to background checks.
Really, is it fair that someones life should be completely ruined for that? Even for just keeping tabs, it's a little extreme don't you think?
Monster Rain wrote:I really don't have an issue with the Sex Offender registry thing.
There's some flaws in the system, sure, but I still think that it's a good idea to keep tabs on potentially dangerous people. I don't know why they don't do it for all violent criminals, to be honest.
Unfortunately those flaws are really huge gaps. If you slept with your 17 year old girlfriend when you were 19, it's statutory rape and you're placed on the sex offender registry.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but does it really happen that often?
Well, technically speaking it should happen every time as it's technically statutory rape. However, I can't give you figures on how often that kind of thing happens, but the restrictions apply to every person on the sex offenders registry, regardless of their crime. Some people are even on their for public nudity, and there in the same boat as pedophile rapists. The article I linked a few posts up has some more in depth information on it, if you're interested.
Ahtman wrote:If you are restricted to an area and will get arrested for going there, you don't have the freedom to go where you want. The capability of doing something isn't the same as the freedom to do it.
But they still can do it if they want, even if they are restricted. Unless of course we are talking about physical barriers actually preventing them from going someplace they are restricted.
The downside is they get jailed for violating a law.
WarOne wrote:
Hmmm...so could you have something like popular liberty, where you give the most liberty to the most people?
Absolutely, but that sort of thing is antithetical to populism, because it necessarily turns on the perceptions of elites with respect to the good of the people.
I suppose the implication is then that populist governments almost always fail because they either become too weak to function, or fail to become aware of their newly elite status, and thereby carry the assumption that their needs are the people's needs.
WarOne wrote:
Hmmm...so could you have something like popular liberty, where you give the most liberty to the most people?
Absolutely, but that sort of thing is antithetical to populism, because it necessarily turns on the perceptions of elites with respect to the good of the people.
I suppose the implication is then that populist governments almost always fail because they either become too weak to function, or fail to become aware of their newly elite status, and thereby carry the assumption that their needs are the people's needs.
Okay. Now how do you view the current position of the United States in terms of identifying their structure of government relative to the power(s) held by the people (people being broad since we have no royalty, nobles, serfs; technically we have a tiered upper, middle, and lower class but not sure how to approach that).
agnosto wrote:Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.
Your grasp of history is just a little off, and it's really amusing since you mentioned the Civil War. Pop quiz question: Which party was Lincoln a member of?
agnosto wrote:Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.
Your grasp of history is just a little off, and it's really amusing since you mentioned the Civil War. Pop quiz question: Which party was Lincoln a member of?
He was a whig and then a republican. What you are failing to mention is that the republican party of lincoln was a different animal compared to the modern republican party. Since you think my grasp of history is off, why don't you look up the history of the whig party and the two main factions that it consisted of, the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery....in fact it was that issue that saw to the demise of the party in the mid 1800s (1850-something if I recall). The reason Lincoln left the Whig party and became a Republican is for the simple fact that it was founded on an anti-slavery premise. After reconstruction, the party started taking a turn towards what you see today. In fact it wasn't until the 1960s, when the conservative coalition caused the party to become more polarized vs. the democratic party. Before the '60s the republicans espoused classical liberalism and progressivism; it's really turned the corner from its progressive roots if you ask me since most modern republicans could care less about the middle class but this last part is my opinion.
Since we're talking about history, maybe you should do a little research before you belittle someone else's knowledge.
...and here I thought my degree in History would be useless...
ShumaGorath wrote:
You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.
The fact you're here disproves the veracity of that statement...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:For the record, sex offenders are a fairly specialized case as far as bigotry goes, and especially in the United States,
Agreed. However it is a slippery slope when defining people and then marginalizing them for who/what they are.
I'm not saying to accept bigots or sex offenders. Bigots are people with irrational fears or hatred and it could take a life time to overcome if a person believes they can change. Plus being identified as a bigot can darken your reputation for the rest of your life.
As for sex offenders, you must have some cause for concern, as some caused great harm to others. Those sex offenders do need to be watched and protected from the public backlash as they re-enter society. Their condition was inflicted, but under current laws they are free to go once they enter society. However, society rejects and shuns them, even the ones with relatively minor offenses.
The only good sex offender is a dead sex offender.
If I slept with my 17 year old girlfriend (consensually), I've just committed statutory rape, thus making me a sex offender. Does that make me an evil human being who has no right to live where he chooses anymore?
ChrisWWII wrote:If I slept with my 17 year old girlfriend (consensually), I've just committed statutory rape, thus making me a sex offender. Does that make me an evil human being who has no right to live where he chooses anymore?
Yep. You want to help stop teen pregnancies? Make statutory rape a capital offence, on the spot.
Frazzled wrote:The only good sex offender is a dead sex offender.
That's a bold statement considering that peeing behind a tree can get you added to the sex offender list. I'm pretty sure you've done it; does that mean we can kill you now?
Edit: noticed this was worded too strongly; I don't mean to say someone should kill you.
Frazzled wrote:The only good sex offender is a dead sex offender.
That's a bold statement considering that peeing behind a tree can get you added to the sex offender list. I'm pretty sure you've done it; does that mean we can kill you now?
Edit: noticed this was worded too strongly; I don't mean to say someone should kill you.
As soon as you've shown me where someone was actually convicted of such.
When I was a medical student one of the surgical courses I did was urology, which includes the subject of kidney stones.
If you get kidney stones, sometimes you can pee them out if they are small enough, but if they are the wrong size, they can get stuck in your urethra. You then have to use manipulation to try and get the stone out.
The consultant told us about one case in which a patient of his had this unfortunate occurrence when in a public lavatory. The man was standing there, trying to work the stone out of his penis, and got arrested for public indecency.
Fortunately, when the case came to court, the consultant was able to stand as an expert medical witness to prove that the man was innocent.
ChrisWWII wrote: I slept with my 17 year old girlfriend (consensually), I've just committed statutory rape, thus making me a sex offender.
Do you want me to add this to your profile ?
Can we not? That'd just be a tad embarrassing......Then again, I am outside of US jurisdiction...and somehow I doubt the state of California would crucify me for that. But still, I need to watch what I say more I think.
On a completely unrelated note, I've just realized how important a single word can be. Never again will I misquote someone.
Frazzled wrote:
Yep. You want to help stop teen pregnancies? Make statutory rape a capital offence, on the spot.
...I should be mildly concerned I'm trying to prevent two mods from creating a justification for my death. Joy.... I suppose that could work to cut down teen pregnancy, though. Besides, it certain cases it already is be a capital offence on the spot.
I am suddenly horrified of going to that dakka tournament in Canterbury now. I really am. Could I get a refund? That and I'm morbidly curious as to why I'm actually going to die...
I just don't buy that society should be lenient on sex offenders because someone who broke the law a little less than the "really bad guys" might get into a lot of trouble.
Monster Rain wrote:I just don't buy that society should be lenient on sex offenders because someone who broke the law a little less than the "really bad guys" might get into a lot of trouble.
Actually, should really depend on sex offender.
Creepy old men who do bad things to children- lock away long time.
Two teens who have consenual intercourse but one happens to be overage and the other just underage- well poor older teen becomes sex offender for life.
Monster Rain wrote:Meh. If its against the law, and you do it, why would you expect any different outcome?
Because it's obviously a different situation. Unless, you're saying that an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old is the same as 40 year old raping a 13 year old? I personally think there is a major difference there, and the former situation being a situation that deserves much less punishment than the latter. I fail to see why the former situation is wrong at all, except for the fact that one is above the arbitrary line drawn by the state as being an 'adult'.
I personally think there should be 'degrees' to the sex offender registry in the same vein as there are 'degrees' of murder. A man who accidentally hits a pedestrian and kills him does not have the same punish as one who committed the pre-meditated murder of another. There's a difference there, and there's a difference above. As was said, that's why our justice system is not: 'You stole a candy bar. You will suffer the same punishment as a man who murdered his family in cold blood.'
Edit: WarOne....why? Why Flying Spaghetti Monster, why? My eyes burn.
Monster Rain wrote:Meh. If its against the law, and you do it, why would you expect any different outcome?
Because it's obviously a different situation. Unless, you're saying that an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old is the same as 40 year old raping a 13 year old? I personally think there is a major difference there, and the former situation being a situation that deserves much less punishment than the latter. I fail to see why the former situation is wrong at all, except for the fact that one is above the arbitrary line drawn by the state as being an 'adult'.
I personally think there should be 'degrees' to the sex offender registry in the same vein as there are 'degrees' of murder. A man who accidentally hits a pedestrian and kills him does not have the same punish as one who committed the pre-meditated murder of another. There's a difference there, and there's a difference above. As was said, that's why our justice system is not: 'You stole a candy bar. You will suffer the same punishment as a man who murdered his family in cold blood.'
I think that would be fine, but while things are the way that they are I'm afraid I can't get all riled up about people getting in trouble for doing things that they know are illegal.
Monster Rain wrote:Meh. If its against the law, and you do it, why would you expect any different outcome?
Because it's obviously a different situation. Unless, you're saying that an 18 year old sleeping with a 16 year old is the same as 40 year old raping a 13 year old? I personally think there is a major difference there, and the former situation being a situation that deserves much less punishment than the latter. I fail to see why the former situation is wrong at all, except for the fact that one is above the arbitrary line drawn by the state as being an 'adult'.
I personally think there should be 'degrees' to the sex offender registry in the same vein as there are 'degrees' of murder. A man who accidentally hits a pedestrian and kills him does not have the same punish as one who committed the pre-meditated murder of another. There's a difference there, and there's a difference above. As was said, that's why our justice system is not: 'You stole a candy bar. You will suffer the same punishment as a man who murdered his family in cold blood.'
Edit: WarOne....why? Why Flying Spaghetti Monster, why? My eyes burn.
If you capped the overage guy, then he would be committing a crime with the underage girl, and we wouldn't be having more underage children. Problem - solution.
Protip-if you don't like the punishment, don't do the crime.
Monster Rain wrote:I just don't buy that society should be lenient on sex offenders because someone who broke the law a little less than the "really bad guys" might get into a lot of trouble.
Actually, should really depend on sex offender.
Creepy old men who do bad things to children- lock away long time.
Two teens who have consenual intercourse but one happens to be overage and the other just underage- well poor older teen becomes sex offender for life.
Two teens who are both underage both become sex offenders for life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Meh. If its against the law, and you do it, why would you expect any different outcome?
For the same reason why we don't have one punishment for all crimes.
Thats where we went wrong. What would Hammurabi do?
He would get hauled in front of the Supreme Court for violation of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
On the sex offender argument i kinda had this out with my missus, and it escalated into a kinda, real argument because she was offended, but i was basically saying that there is a big difference between a young man 16-25 or something shagging a 15 year old girl, and a 50 year old man shagging a five year old girl. I think she got more offended because the legal age here is 16 (hence i picked 15) and California is 18.
Im not saying its not a terrible thing to do, its morally reprehensible to take advantage of young women, but it just isnt the same thing if your almost of the same age group, and shouldnt be punished as such.
At the end of the day, thats what a court is for, and im pretty sure that the sentance will fit the crime generally speaking. All you have to go off is Chronology, and some women are very mature for 15 while some men are very immature for 20 or whatever, Its very doubtful that a young lad will get strung up for nailing his underage girlfriend if he is 3 or 4 years older if you have a jury and a court with an ounce of common sense.
And hey, arent the Americans a bit harsh with this whole thing? 18 is the legal age? Its 16 here, and the Germans crack on at 14...
Yeah ive got personal experience about this kinda stuff thanks to me "putting it about" due to my job. The Americans are alot more conservative, even my current missus (American) thinks some of the stuff ive done is "DISGUSTING" and she was genuinely pissed off about it when i first told her a few years back.
For example i was seeing a German lass on and off for about a year when i was over there with the service, she was smoking hot, taller than me, and only 16 when i met her (an i was 23) she was mature, it caused no issues and i even stayed over at her place and in her bed after i had met her parents a few times. I would go over when i got some leave and stay with the family, eat with them.. chat with them all, it was fine and they all genuinelly seemed to like me.
Needless to say when my current missus started asking me about my (somewhat prolific) past sex life and i casually mentioned i went out with a 16 year old lass when i was in my twenties she basically called me a pervert.
Americans are tight lipped with Sex, strict with booze but loose with guns...
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
The it sucks to be him. Frazzled empathy meter = 0
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Off topic thread is off topic,
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
really? I want what you are smoking.
I'm with Ma55ter_fett on this one. We live in a country where generally speaking 40% of the population will always vote Republican and 40% will always vote Democrat regardless of who the candidates on either side are. Out of the remaining 20%, about 5% will lean Republican every election and 5% will lean Democrat but are moveable based on candidates and only 10% of the electoral base is truly moderate in their opinions and will vote strictly on the candidates merits. Most Tea Party candidates simply don't appeal to the 15% of the swing vote they would need to pull and the most successful Tea Party candidates right now are the ones who displaced a Republican candidate in the primaries and are essentially running on the Republican ticket instead of as a true third party. I stand by my earlier predicition that you'll see alot of close (4 to 6 percentage points difference) races falling to the democrats and that you won't see a significant shift in the House. The Republicans might get the Senate depending on how a couple of races turn out but even there I'd only expect to see the gap narrowing rather then the Republicans turning the corner. Possibly the biggest reason for this is that the seats the Tea Party candidates are most likely to win are seats currently held by the Republicans where they displaced an incumbent in the party primary.
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.
-Yad
I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.
-Yad
I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...
To bad you don't live in Illinois, I think you of all people would be best equiped to deal with an outbreak of zombies who were hungry for "Voootezzz"
On the positive, zombies have no known preference for chocolate. So after the zombie olympics I am so going to to pig out. You know, chocolate cake DOES have a shelf life.
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.
-Yad
I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...
Heard from a Leprechaun riding a Unicorn being led by Bigfoot no doubt. Whenever I hear or read GOP claims of voter fraud and/or intimidation it almost always reminds me of the Macbeth soliloquy ending with "...full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Which is the typical end result of GOP claims of voting fraud and intimidation.
Right up there with Oklahoma's sharia law ballot measure hysteria.
I don't see many tea party candidates getting elected this time round and I don't think that the dems will lose their majority in either the senate or the house.
I'm not as optimistic as that. I do believe that the Democratic party will hold the Senate. There are simply too many imploding Tea Party (GOP) candidates for them not to. I'm not nearly as sure on the House though. If the D's get a really good GOTV effort then I think they have a strong chance to retain the majority. What I'm really really hopeful for is that the Senate re-writes its rules and either removes or severely restructures the use of the filibuster.
-Yad
I hear the Illinois GOTV campaign will see a landslide number of dead people voting, even more than 2008...
Heard from a Leprechaun riding a Unicorn being led by Bigfoot no doubt. Whenever I hear or read GOP claims of voter fraud and/or intimidation it almost always reminds me of the Macbeth soliloquy ending with "...full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Which is the typical end result of GOP claims of voting fraud and intimidation.
Right up there with Oklahoma's sharia law ballot measure hysteria.
-Yad
Why are you assuming thats a GOP claim? Not a student of Illinois voter patterns I see.
It's a matter of voter turnout. In a mid-term election, I don't see alot of moderates getting out to vote, particularly because they don't really have anyone to vote for. I for one am sick of this election cycle, and all of the bullmess commercials that get played to death.
I sit as a left-leaning libertarian, and I'm stuck between voting for Jerry Brown, and Meg Whitman. SrsLY?! Besides the fact that Gov. of California has absolutely no power to change anything, what being cuckholded by the CA legislature and all... But voting for a fringe Tea Party candidate just to "shake things up" doesn't appeal to me at all.
Same reason Prop 19 will most likely fail here in CA. Voter turnout. The people who are all fired up about this election are exactly the ones who shouldn't have a say. The moderates and social libertarians don't have any real representation in available candidates, so no wonder they're apathetic.
Speaking of Prop 19 (Legalization of Marijuana) kind of wondering where you come out on the issue Frazz, what with your Libertarian leanings...
agnosto wrote:Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.
He was a whig and then a republican. What you are failing to mention is that the republican party of lincoln was a different animal compared to the modern republican party.
Are you arguing that the Republican party of lincoln believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole, or was that one of the ways in which it was a different animal? Lincoln certainly didn't, and it was Republicans winning the election that prompted the mostly Democratic south to seceede, so I doubt that you're going to be able to argue that the Republicans of lincoln's time believed that.
It's that 'always believed' that's a problem there.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Are you arguing that the Republican party of lincoln believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole, or was that one of the ways in which it was a different animal? Lincoln certainly didn't, and it was Republicans winning the election that prompted the mostly Democratic south to seceede, so I doubt that you're going to be able to argue that the Republicans of lincoln's time believed that.
It's that 'always believed' that's a problem there.
There was a great deal of political upheaval at the time of Lincoln's defection to the fledgling Republican party. Foremost among his reasons, in my opinion, was that the Republican party strongly supported the anti-slavery movement while the Whigs were tearing themselves apart over the issue.
I guess I may have even confused myself there with the "always" thing. I was operating in memory and I think we all know what can happen then. The thing that's always interested me is how the two parties have flipped over the years. The democrats started as anti-federalists and the republicans as progressives and look where they stand now.
agnosto wrote:Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.
He was a whig and then a republican. What you are failing to mention is that the republican party of lincoln was a different animal compared to the modern republican party.
Are you arguing that the Republican party of lincoln believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole, or was that one of the ways in which it was a different animal? Lincoln certainly didn't, and it was Republicans winning the election that prompted the mostly Democratic south to seceede, so I doubt that you're going to be able to argue that the Republicans of lincoln's time believed that.
It's that 'always believed' that's a problem there.
You should probably shy away from the mixup that republicans espouse less governmental control, in reality when looking at proposals and actual action taken (rather then talking points) they generally prefer privatisation and espouse "Small government ideals" through privatisation. Note that neither of these things realistically have ever reduced government control or involvement in american affairs. A preference cutting taxes in the republican mind is historically not accompanied by budgetary cuts. Republicans tend to further invest in and improve monolithic standing governmental programs (medicare discussions during the healthcare debate for instance) rather then start or fund newer policies that would supplant or run along side such programs (instead, again, preferring that the free market take smaller concerns into it's own hand while investing that same amount of money (because remember they don't actually cut the budget) back into those largescale programmes). Democrats on the other hand largely seem willing to invest in long term and short term new solutions while cutting or transiting from standing programmes (the early proposals for removing medicare and totally overhauling the medical system as a counter). Of course neither party is every particularly consistent with how it treats problems, especially reoccurring ones so slapping boilerplate labels such as "progressive" or "conservative" onto people to differentiate opinions from parties has become common.
they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
