Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youbedead wrote:

sebster wrote:

Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?

Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.

Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.

As a U.S. citizen I would like to apologize for the (thankfully) few citizens who don't seem to understand the tenants of this great nation.

There is much more than a few, my friend.

youbedead wrote:

sebster wrote:

Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?

Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.

Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.

As a U.S. citizen I would like to apologize for the (thankfully) few citizens who don't seem to understand the tenants of this great nation.

The only thing more frustrating than low voter turnout if people who are actively apathetic about doing it. It would be nice if there was a feasible way to make compulsory voting workable in the states.

Bookwrack wrote:
The only thing more frustrating than low voter turnout if people who are actively apathetic about doing it. It would be nice if there was a feasible way to make compulsory voting workable in the states.

It's actually kind of sad. People seem to think their votes don't count. I once made it into office by a margin of five people.

BaronIveagh wrote:It's actually kind of sad. People seem to think their votes don't count. I once made it into office by a margin of five people.

Even in that instance, individual votes don't count. The decision of an individual to vote or not would have meant you won by 4 votes, or by 6, and not actually changed the result. The only time the individual voter counted is when the result was a tie, or a win by one vote.

It's actually a conundrum economists debate, because there really isn't a personal incentive to vote. Everyone should vote, but the argument for it can be made from duty or something similar, direct personal benefit is an almost impossible argument to make for any election with more than a handful of voters.

I would just like to point out that the Tea Party movement is based around the idea that the state should have a lessenned involvement with our daily lives, and that the US Tax code should be simpler to understand, as a kind of extension of 'No taxation withour representation.' In all honesty, the Tea Party is not a bad movement, and I'm all for a more transparent tax system, and a smaller government. The problem comes with the type of people and candidat the Tea Party attracts....unfortunately, it tends to attract far right conservatives in both the social and financial sense, when the idea of the tea party is only right wing in the fiscal sense.

ChrisWWII wrote:...when the idea of the tea party is only right wing in the fiscal sense.

I think its more about generic populism, and hatred of the state, than explicit fiscal conservatism. That's certainly a big part of movement, but I don't think its the heart of it.

You have a point, and there is a lot of anti-state attirude within the Tea Party movement, but we at least agree that fiscal conservatism is a big part of Tea Party policy. I personally think that the Tea Party stands for strong fiscal conservatism, and this stance attracts alot of populists and anti-state activists, but I can't prove it.

I thought it was just "god hates those goddamned liberals and that antichrist Obama whose to blame for everything wrong, he took my wife, my car, my house, and my job, and I sure as hell ain't gonna let him take my dog" myself, but what do I know from listening to local nutjobs. I mean tea party members. Same thing in the end around here.

Eh, I'd call that a fair approximation of your slightly crazier than baseline Tea Partier, but it's not fair for the Tea Party. Like most political movements, it's got an extremely vocal minority who are the insane 'God hates that commie Muslim, Obama' type nutjobs, and then they get put on the headlines and frontlines, cause hey controversey = $$$/Attention. As I understand it, you can support the Tea Party's ideals without being a nutjob.

Course I'm from California, so our 'crazy far right' people may be what you Texans call 'moderately right'.

That assumes that the tea party actually collectively has any ideals to support, as it's a national grassroots movement (not a true organization) which widely varies from state to state. Or in Texas, from regions within the state to different regions.

"Cut back the government, unless it would personally effect me." is probably more accurate.

Well yes, they are a grass roots movement with no central authority, but the idea that brought the movement together in the first place was resisting higher taxes, and a desire for smaller government, which I must say is an admirable goal. However, as they grew, they ended up attracting the nutjobs, who made the public think that they were all crazed far right religious nutjobs.

I personally view their policies as taking stricter interpretations of the Constitution, more so than 'cut back the government unless it hurts me'.

ChrisWWII wrote:I personally view their policies as taking stricter interpretations of the Constitution

Ahahah, no, most assuredly not. The "right", including the tea party crapola, doesn't care any more about the constitution than the "left" unless it benefits their political stance, and are quick to ignore the constitution and attempt to work around it when it doesn't. See: defense of marriage act, a bilateral effort to violate the constitution at the expense of homosexual couples across the nation. If they wanted a stricter interpretation of the constitution the DoMA would be one of the first to go, as it blatantly defies the constitution.

Maybe it's just me then...I count myself as more a libertarian than anything else. But the first thing on the Tea Party's 'Contract from America' is that every new law must have a statement where it points to where in the Constituion it's justified.

I agree, the religous right doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. They want to use it as a shield so they can acheive their own agenda. However, I draw a line betweent he religious right, and the Tea Party, even though a lot of Tea Party members are also members of the religious right, which is quite unfortunate to be honest. The Tea Party had good ideas, and good ideals...but those ideals got tarnished by the people they attracted.

ChrisWWII wrote:However, I draw a line betweent he religious right, and the Tea Party

Considering the tea party's average member locally, I can't do that.

I also can't draw the line between "tea party" and "republican", because pretty much everyone that says they're tea party now used to be a republican. It's just a new buzz word, and rather worthless in actual debate.

The heart of political conservatism is essentially a world view dominated by an inability to accept or express love at its' most important point...forgiveness.

ender502

But the first thing on the Tea Party's 'Contract from America' is that every new law must have a statement where it points to where in the Constituion it's justified. Why? The founders wouldn't know anything about half the laws we need. Plus things get amended. The issue with the Tea party and Conservatives is that they can't accept when they are wrong, (broadly speaking). The governer is too afraid to back off of his stance, They try to justify the Iraq war as a war for freedom while turning away Libya. They try to be pro life while rattling on about nuking places and sterilizing the poor. They claim to be against illegal workers while fighting any law that punishes the companies that hire them. They claim to love the constitution when they can't deal with freedom of religion. I could go on but I feel an Anti Obama rant coming on..

They claim that their stance is all about job job job jobs, and then start eliminating as many of them as they can at the first oppurtunity.

Anyway, Walker's not afraid, he's just a XXXX. Look at his budget plan. He's saying that by busting public employee unions, he's giving local government the flexibility to deal with the upcoming budget cuts - except that at the same time he's thoroughly hogtieing local government's ability to do anything except fire people. Then there are his plans for the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A very successful public university with renowned mechanical engineering and bio programs? feth no! Can't let that sillinees go on!

It's bizarre, but the only consistent narrative he's been holding this whole time is the desire to feth over every regular citizen of Wisconsin as hard as he possibly can.

I think the Tea Party is built very loosely around the idea that something has gone with America, and that it needs to go back to being how it used to be. Exactly what has gone wrong varies from person to person, it could be deficit, it could be immigration, it could be traditional morals.

It's basically an angrier version of typical conservatism. Which makes sense, given the movement was manufactured by FreedomWorks to offset the poisonous Republican brand that existed in the wake of the 2008 elections.

Personally the whole "taxation without representation" is kind of a joke to me. I mean im a permanent resident and i pay my taxes but im not a citizen so i cant vote, i have no choice of representative however small it may be.

Gibbsey wrote:Personally the whole "taxation without representation" is kind of a joke to me. I mean im a permanent resident and i pay my taxes but im not a citizen so i cant vote, i have no choice of representative however small it may be.

If you are a permanent resident the option for citizenship is there. Or you can just do what my mother inlaw does and brow beat someone into voting the way you want



Living in WI has been interesting over the last few weeks to say the least. Never seen so many people at each others throats or willing to jump on someone verbally because they might not agree with them or voted another way. I've lost count of how many people I've gotten in arguments or seen acting like juveniles yelling names and disrespect. As an independent both sides seem to think I'm fair game for either harassment or conversion. As an open carry, CCW, advocate some seem to think that automatically makes me a Tea Party member. All I can say is read both sides and decide for yourself because they're both putting some serious spin on the issues at hand. To base ones view completely off of one political party's rhetoric is simply simple.

sebster wrote:Which makes sense, given the movement was manufactured by FreedomWorks to offset the poisonous Republican brand that existed in the wake of the 2008 elections.

I think that its a bit unfair to say that it was "manufactured" as you can't make people believe something in any nominal sense (eg. without aggressive conditioning); "organized" or "funded" seem like better descriptions.

Vandil wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Personally the whole "taxation without representation" is kind of a joke to me. I mean im a permanent resident and i pay my taxes but im not a citizen so i cant vote, i have no choice of representative however small it may be.

If you are a permanent resident the option for citizenship is there. Or you can just do what my mother inlaw does and brow beat someone into voting the way you want



Living in WI has been interesting over the last few weeks to say the least. Never seen so many people at each others throats or willing to jump on someone verbally because they might not agree with them or voted another way. I've lost count of how many people I've gotten in arguments or seen acting like juveniles yelling names and disrespect. As an independent both sides seem to think I'm fair game for either harassment or conversion. As an open carry, CCW, advocate some seem to think that automatically makes me a Tea Party member. All I can say is read both sides and decide for yourself because they're both putting some serious spin on the issues at hand. To base ones view completely off of one political party's rhetoric is simply simple.

Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"

frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"

That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.

Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.

Vandil wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"

That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.

Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.

There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.

Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.

biccat wrote:

Vandil wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"

That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.

Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.

There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.

Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.

Other than the amendment granting DC 3 electoral votes?

Vandil wrote:

biccat wrote:

Vandil wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"

That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.

Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.

There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.

Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.

Other than the amendment granting DC 3 electoral votes?

Yes, I know they can vote in Presidential Elections, but the push has been for representation in the House and Senate.

Senators and Representatives convey electoral votes, electoral votes do not convey Senators and Representatives.

biccat wrote:

Vandil wrote:

biccat wrote:

Vandil wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
Unless you live in washington DC... then you can understand their license plates, "taxation without representation"

That's really not a new issue though it's been like that since the district was created. Bills in 2007 and 2009 that would have granted some voting rights to the district failed to get enough support because of the district's laws making it illegal for residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business, requiring gun registration, ban on semiautomatic weapons, and criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.

Obama said he would sign a bill that granted voting rights to DC and the supreme court struck down a majority of the anti gun laws that held up the last two bills, so there's hope yet! Obama co sponsored one of the previous bills.

There's also the fact that the Constitution prevents those who live in DC from getting votes in Federal Elections.

Seems to me that would be the biggest hurdle to DC voting.

Other than the amendment granting DC 3 electoral votes?

Yes, I know they can vote in Presidential Elections, but the push has been for representation in the House and Senate.

Senators and Representatives convey electoral votes, electoral votes do not convey Senators and Representatives.

Right, both the 2007 and 2009 district of Columbia voting rights act permanently added 2 seats to the house but were not tied to district population in anyway.

We could always return the district to the state of Maryland!

Vandil wrote:Right, both the 2007 and 2009 district of Columbia voting rights act permanently added 2 seats to the house but were not tied to district population in anyway.

We could always return the district to the state of Maryland!

The problem is Congress doesn't have the authority to add 2 seats to the House from D.C. They can add seats and apportion them among the states, but they can't actually add any from D.C. without adding it as a State (which raises some new issues).

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State

Although, there's an argument that no individual would have standing to challenge the law, which might pose a problem.

Vandil wrote:
We could always return the district to the state of Maryland!

That's not a bad idea, considering that main reason to maintain DC as an independent municipality, unfair representation within the federal legislature, is no longer problematic due to the fact that no legislators actually live there.