How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Tea Party Flop?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Tea Party Flop?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


50 posted 04-23-2010 05:57 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Bob says:
I support the right of people to own them, but they should not be a part of a political discussion.

Ron responds:
Liberty with your limitations imposed, Bob? Is that still liberty?
[/quote]

         At what point did you see me doing more than expressing my opinion here, Ron?  The tax day demonstrations in Virginia, however, did feature armed folks.  They were in fact celebrating their freedom of speech, but at something of a cost to the freedoms of the rest of the population.  I have done nothing to limit the speech of others, as is evident from your response and from the response of others from time to time.  Had you come armed to a political debate, you would not have heard a response from me.  I have no desire to become cold cuts in a martyr sandwich.

     I would argue that the guns supply the limitations on free speech, especially when brought to a public gathering.

     You seem to be conflating my reasoning with the force of law and the imposition of legal force.  

     Exactly how I seem to have acquired this power is beyond me, and I'd like to know how you seem to have invested me with it.

     "Liberty with your limitations imposed, Bob? " was your phrase. I am limited by my ability to reason and to explain my thinking, both of which are limited in the extreme, as I am only too aware.  I can also point out flaws in the thinking of others, and I can try to be as honest as I can tolerate being.  That's it.  

     I can't and wouldn't want to impose my will on the world.  It takes people who are willing to tolerate a much more painful level of consequence, or who don't feel it, than I can to take such things on.


quote:
Bob Says:
I was quite upset perhaps two years or so ago when the border patrol, first, searched a bus I was on in Buffalo on its way to Ithaca, then searched it again in Rochester, and finally searched it yet again in Rochester on the way back, checking everybody's papers and closely questioning some Japanese visitors and an Indian Couple.  That I felt was an obscene intrusion of state power.

And Ron comments:

And yet, presumably, you'd be fine with it, Bob, if the passengers were carrying guns?
[/quote]

     And your presumption would be wrong.

     My position about guns is about as totally illogical as a position can get, absolutely idiotic.  I think they are beautiful.  I admire the way they work, and I think they are marvelous.  I admire their compact essence of violence.

     Having seen violence, I loath what it can do, and find any use of guns besides war and hunting absolutely repulsive, and I find those repulsive as well but I know that they're not about to vanish, so we need to be able to do them well enough to be able to avoid them or to minimize them.  When I was a kid, I owned guns, but I sold them.  Now I think I'd like to do some target shooting, but I'm ambivalent about having them in the house.  I've been threatened by them on at least two occasions, and, on the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

     I rather prefer the way the English handle the things.

     Is that confusing enough for you?

     I'd rather nobody was carrying guns, or that everybody was as well trained in them as the Swiss or the Israelis.


quote:

Bob says:
I fail to see how saying that watching demonstrators walk around with guns, or seeing congressmen make comments about how the government is responsible for blowing up the building in Oklahoma City is anything other than provocative.  If fail to see that this sort of rhetoric is useful under these circumstances.

Ron Replies:

And there's the crux of the matter, Bob.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Constitution doesn't impose that particular limitation on our rights to free speech. Bob doesn't have to see what I say as useful, or as anything else, before I get to say it. Indeed, it is precisely that kind of power that our Constitution tries to avoid putting into the hands of mere men. Bob doesn't have to like what I say. Bob just has to tolerate it.

Because that's the only way what he says will be tolerated as well.
[/quote]

     But Bob has tolerated it.

     He has also decided not to keep his mouth shut in the process of tolerating it.

     In his free speech, he can focus on pretty much whatever criteria he wishes to focus on.  Some people choose to focus on whether The President was born in a mud hut in Nigeria, and whether it is important whether there is a long form birth certificate available somewhere in the State of Hawaii with the President's name on it all these years after the State did away with that form.  They find this discussion deeply meaningful, and they spend many hours talking about the pro and con of this business, and have furthermore, done so in these pages.

     This is, of course, free speech, and if I have something to say in the matter, I can respond.  If I don't, I don't have to respond.

     Some folks feel this subject is deeply meaningful and are still fascinated by it.

     Myself, not so much.  

     But I have things to say on the subject, and found the discussion stimulating after its fashion.  I'm willing to stretch for the sake of friendship and for the community and for the fun of a good discussion, and I can find things to say to people that I enjoy.  I don't have to, and I don't always, but I can.

     I bring up subjects from time to time, and sometimes people like them, and sometimes they don't.  I don't expect to have control over that.  I know better.  Free speech includes the freedom to ignore what other people say, including what I say, and I never expected otherwise.

     However, I can certainly set whatever criterion I'd like to set in what I say as long as it isn't the equivalent of shouting Theater at a crowded Fire (that was an intentional reversal, and was meant as a little joke, for those who might be wondering).  Those who read what I have to say are free to react any way they like.  Ron can say, "The nerve of that guy to try to set standards that the rest of us have to follow," if he wants; and somebody else can say, "Really, walking around with an assault rifle at a demonstration does set a bit of a limit on what other folks are likely to say.  It's not a very useful way of opening up a conversation, is it?"  

     Both are free to draw their own conclusions.

     If I thought my words were law, I'd never write anything.  The responsibility is simply too awesome.  Instead, I write the way I was taught to write, as though I meant it.  Let other folks include the qualifiers they may think belong there; for me to do so is namby  pamby writing.

     For the record, Bob actually does like a lot of what you say.  

     I think your insistence on free speech is marvelous, for example.

     How you think me exercising mine shuts down other people's, though, is a bit beyond me.  If they disagree with me, they are certainly free to say so, and to say how and why.  They will surely be correct some percentage of the time, and their arguments will prevail.

      


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


51 posted 04-23-2010 08:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Mmm. So, Bob, is it safe to say that you don't advocate what you say, you just say it to be talking? You don't really want people at public events to be disarmed and would fight against it if someone else wanted it? That simply characterizing others as hateful or dangerous doesn't mean you want them to stop?

I guess I have to offer you my apologies for jumping to conclusions. I thought you meant, well, what you said.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


52 posted 04-23-2010 08:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I agree Ron, It's not right when either party in power attempts to chill the free speech of the opposition. But I think the deck is a little more stacked at this time with the media in the administration's pocket. And I don't recall Bush mocking any protestors, as Obama is prone to do. In fact, I believe that Bush actually agreed to meet with Cindy Sheehan at one point, and stated that she had the right to picket outside his ranch. I also don't recall him disparaging the protests on the left even though they had a tendency toward violence and hate-filled rhetoric, and I don't recall any outcry against them from the Dems either for their tactics, and yet now the Dems don't miss an opportunity to disparage the Tea Pary protests, even though they are peaceful, because their 'disagreement' with government policy could 'possibly' fuel violence. Gotta love those double standards!

No, Michael, I didn't see a single gun on display at any of the rallies in Philadelphia that I attended nor the one in D.C. that I attended. Nope, not a single gun-toting granny amongst us! Not that there would be anything wrong with that!

Bob, there is absolutely no evidence that members of the Black Caucus were 'spat upon' by Tea Party members. The best case that can possibly be made is that one of them was inadvertly 'sprayed' by one protestor during his exhuberant yelling of 'kill the bill'. I don't see how that rises to claims of racism.

From what I read about the slur against Barney Frank, it supposedly came in response to Braney Frank giving the finger to the protestors and telling them to go eff themselves. I'm not defending the guy who responded that way to Frank's provocation, if he did, but Frank isn't completely innocent either, if the scenario actually happened. There isn't any audio or video proof of any of it.

As to the birth certificate, Hawaii just discontinued the long form recently, late last year or early this year. That isn't relevent to the year Obama was born in any event. If he was born in Hawaii he has a long form on file. If he wasn't, he doesn't, he would just have something similar to what he shared online, the Certification of Live Birth, something that Hawaii issued back then to those born elsewhere. Obama's sister has the same thing and she was born in Indonesia.

You can't fault people for wondering when his own grandmother was the one who opened up this can of worms by saying she was there at his birth in Kenya, and when the people of Kenya have repeatedly stated he was born there, even some of those in government.

Suspicions are also heightened when he refuses to reveal any documentation from his past, not only his birth records, but also any school records, university records, medical records, passport records, etc.  He should have been required to present his documentation, as McCain had to when the press made an issue of his potential elegibility problem and a Senate Committee convened a hearing on it. The press and the Senate gave Obama a pass.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 04-23-2010 11:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Mmm. So, Bob, is it safe to say that you don't advocate what you say, you just say it to be talking? You don't really want people at public events to be disarmed and would fight against it if someone else wanted it? That simply characterizing others as hateful or dangerous doesn't mean you want them to stop?

I guess I have to offer you my apologies for jumping to conclusions. I thought you meant, well, what you said.  




     Mmmmm, Ron, I certainly do not like people at public events to be armed.

     Because of the maze of double negatives in your response, however, I'm unclear exactly what you actually stated, and have difficulty in responding as well as I'd like to.  I would not fight against a law to disarm people at public gatherings, however.  While I like firearms, I believe they have little to contribute to political discussion except violence or the threat of violence.  If you want to go hunting with your pals, please go, enjoy yourselves.  If you want to go target shooting, yeah, sure, have fun.  If you want to go the the PTA meeting, a college class, to work at the psych ward or the hospital or the building site with your pals, please leave it at home or in a gun safe someplace else.

     If you want to join a militia, I'd rather it be the state Guard, which is well regulated and which is established for the defense of the country.  The law as interpreted presently allows otherwise, so there you are; I bow before the law, as I must in these cases.

     I have not characterized people hateful.

     I have characterized some speech as hate speech.  And I would certainly characterize some people as dangerous, having met murderers and bank robbers and rapists and such during my time.  I would be a fool not to notice the danger that some people throw off like a radiator throws off heat.  I've had people try to kill me in the past with knives and shards of glass and various other threatening implements, and I've seen people try to kill themselves and try to kill other people in front of me.  So yes, I would absolutely characterize some people as dangerous.

     I have also watched people whip up riots in front of my face wit rhetoric and lies.  I spent close to 15 years watching people do these things, and I've been assaulted lots of times in the process, and injured on a number of occasions as a result.

     I was trained and I believe in always responding with a lesser degree of force.  I am at heart a pacifist.

     I've also maintained a life-long interest in the martial arts.  I confess, I've always been terrible at them, but they've always fascinated me.  I've studied Aikido, Wing Tsun and Tai Chi.  Yes, Helen, Tai Chi is a martial art.

     Pacifist and martial arts enthusiast, aren't you a Hypocrite, Bob?

     Sure.  

     I also find that study of the martial arts helped me calm way down, and helped me deal with the anger I've always had inside, and made my pacifism much more authentic.  I can usually restrain somebody without hurting them.  And I never claimed to be consistent or less than contradictory.

     If you expect that of yourself, good luck.  I simply try to resolve them as best I can, and that isn't always very well.  Did you get the impression that I was otherwise?

     And sure I mean what I say, including the part where I spoke about my thinking on guns as being completely inconsistent with my other thinking.  Perhaps you missed that, or perhaps you simply didn't want to take that into account, or perhaps you thought I couldn't possibly mean that; but I did and do. I love action movies and watching things blow up.  That doesn't mean that I want to hurt people myself.

     That's just another thing about me that people find difficult.  Sorry, Ron.  But don't let it get you down, you can pretend that I'm utterly rigid and authoritarian if it helps.  I'm only utterly rigid and authoritarian sometimes, and I don't even find it a very attractive trait about myself.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


54 posted 04-24-2010 04:23 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Perhaps, Denise, you don't remember the last President having a ball looking under tables and various place for "weapons of mass destruction?"  Nothing mocking or nasty about that, was there?  And I really don't recall him meeting with Ms. Sheehan despite the months she spent camped outside his ranch and outside the white house.  Perhaps it was because she had a question for him that he didn't want to answer?  I don't recall that he tried to answer that, privately or publicly, which he certainly was more than free to do at any time.  Perhaps it slipped his mind.

     If Barney Frank gave the finger to any protesters, this is the first I've heard of it.  Perhaps you could say where you heard that, and what the source might be.  I've heard that the earth was flat, you know, and recently, too.  At any rate, my comment was about the 1995 incident in which Dick Armey called Barney Frank the name that I quoted on the floor of the house, not the first time that Congressman Frank has been insulted for his homosexuality, and unlikely to be the last.  In fact, you'll find one reference to another incident when a Radical Right wing radio talk show host did exactly that in the list of references to racist and anti-gay comments from the radical right a few minutes work dredged up.  I found the comedy sketches less than hysterical, as, too, I found a number of the references that I ran across.  

     There are all sorts of things a person can say but whose utterance needs to be given significant thought before they are said.  "I so swear," is one example.  "I do," is another.  "I love you," is a third.  You can say them without thinking, but once you've uttered them, you have changed your relationship with the world and in some ways, you've changed the kind of person you see yourself as being and certainly, you've changed the way that other people see you.

     You can say what you want, but certain things you say are definitive.  They are actually amount to actions.

     You make a point of talking about how terrible it was that Democrats and folks on the left called President Bush a Fascist.  I agree that actually burning Bush in effigy was pretty provocative, and I really didn't like it, though I confess that burning Obama in effigy would be well within the American political protest mainstream.  I wouldn't love it, mind you, but I'd understand it.  But calling President Bush a fascist is not something I have any problem with at all, sorry to say.  His politics were very much focused in that direction, and he functioned in many ways as a representative of corporate interests, and of running the state for the interests of the corporations.  He put folks from industries in the position of regulating those industries.  He essentially turned the job of managing the henhouse over to the foxes.  That would be at least one definition of fascism, wouldn't it?  Alas, what should have been a massive insult had the disadvantage of being a very good description of reality.  

     How the current president is a fascist or a marxist or a socialist or a communist let alone all four together at the same time has yet to be explained coherently to me.  Folks on the Radical Right don't seem to be very concerned about the fact that it's impossible to be Marxist and fascist at the same time.  The fact that Communists and socialists will often kill each other if brought into close proximity doesn't seem to concern them either.  Facts such as this, that can often be checked out by looking at  the history of the left and of left wing movements, don't seem to concern them over much.  Even when they look at Animal Farm, George Orwell's lovely satire, they seem to ignore how much the various left wing folks tend to kill each other off.  That's because they simply don't understand how important the infighting becomes within these groups, and how impossible it is for there to be the sort of alliances that they imagine happen every day.  It may be very possible that Stalin help speed the end of Lenin, and we know for sure that Trotsky was knocked off by Stalin's secret service.  It's likely that Stalin's end was sped along as well by internal plotting.

     And my Radical Right wing friends imagine that all these folks are plotting the downfall of the united states together from within!  It's more likely that you'll do it yourselves from your own over-reactions to stuff that is barely centrist at all, that was Bob Dole Republican policy in the early 70's and which you now call Socialism.

      


http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/28/us/no-2-house-leader-refers-to-colleague-with-anti-gay-slur.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=457

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/03/7753/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200811030018

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/14/2009-06-14_pol_gorilla_is_related_to_first_lady.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/tea-party-leader-condemns-racial-slurs-hurled-black-lawmakers/

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bky2SGrmC8g

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/02/04/racists-threaten-to-abandon-gop-over-election-of-first-african-american-party-chairman/

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/closed-sessions?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/575124/barack_the_magic_negro/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 04-24-2010 09:44 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and one of the organizers of Saturday's Tea Party rally strongly condemned the racial slurs that some black lawmakers alleged were yelled at them  by some health care protesters as they headed for a procedural vote at Capitol Hill.

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and one of the organizers of Saturday's Tea Party rally strongly condemned the racial slurs that some black lawmakers alleged were yelled at them by some health care protesters as they headed for a procedural vote at Capitol Hill.

"I absolutely think it's isolated," Amy Kremer, the grassroots coordinator of the Tea Party Express, told Fox News on Sunday. "It's disgraceful and the people in this movement won't tolerate it because that's not what we're about."
(emphasis mine)

Well, that's certainly a slur against those pesky right-wingers.


WASHINGTON, Jan. 27—  The House majority leader, Representative Dick Armey of Texas, set off a dispute on Capitol Hill today when he referred to Representative Barney Frank, one of several openly homosexual members of Congress, as "Barney (bleeped out)."

Mr. Armey said later that he had simply mispronounced Mr. Frank's name. First privately and then in addressing the House, he apologized to Mr. Frank for the remark, which he had made in an interview with a group of radio broadcasters.

What is different this time is that Santorum is not getting the kid gloves treatment given to Lott in 1998 when he likened homosexuality to alcoholism and kleptomania, or the free ride given to Congressman Dick Armey, a Texas Republican, after he referred to Democrat Barney Frank, a Massachusetts representative, as "Barney (bleeped out)" in a 1995 interview.


Certainly several links pertaining to that. Interesting until you get to the point where it's from 1995!!  You guys gotta go back 15 years? That desperate in the muckraking excursion?


Ah, the formidible and forgettable Cindy Sheehan, the lady dropped like a hot potato by the Dems when she outlived her usefulness.



...and Bush didn't respond to her?? What was he thinking?? Just perhaps he didn't think a president of the United States would lower himself to respond to crackpots.  No doubt Obama, with his "in your face - you wanna piece of me" Chicago mentality would have. Poor Cindy. Nobody pays attention to her......I doubt if even Jesse has her on his back any longer,
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


56 posted 04-24-2010 10:01 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
You can say what you want, but certain things you say are definitive. They are actually amount to actions.

LOL. Those must be the people who mean what they say, Bob?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 04-24-2010 04:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Getting a tad personal, Ron?

     Are you actually trying to get me to be personal in return?

     Shame on you!  You know what would happen if I did that, and you set a terrible example for people who look up to you, who believe that you mean what you say when you say we shouldn't get personal with each other.  Am I to believe you, when you say that we should get personal and that we should stick to the subject and not attack the person, or does it just mean people other than yourself?

     Inquiring minds are curious.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


58 posted 04-24-2010 06:28 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You're right, Bob. That's too personal. On the other hand, it's a little hard to stick to the subject when you feel you should be able to change it at will.

The subject we were discussing was your attacks on the Bill of Rights, specifically the right to bear arms and our freedom of speech.

You said, "I support the right of people to own (guns), but they should not be a part of a political discussion."

You also said, "If (sic) fail to see that this sort of rhetoric is useful under these circumstances," which of course was little more than a euphemism for your earlier argument that "hate speech" should be verboten.

When called on them, however, you just pulled your head into your turtle shell and claimed, "Oh, that's not at all what I meant." Or, "That's not really what I said." And, of course, my personal favorite, "I was just expressing my opinions."

You can say what you want, but certain things you say are definitive. They are actually amount to actions.

It's a real shame, Bob, that you don't see your own words as definitive. It's a shame you don't realize that the action they amount to is you advocating limitations on basic Constitutional rights. I certainly don't want to attack anyone's opinions, but if they EXPRESS THEM, especially if they express them here, I feel they are inviting discussion on the possible validity of those opinions. You apparently feel otherwise and want to hide behind "They're just my opinions."

Fine, Bob, I would recommend that you should take your opinions and put them in a drawer somewhere where they'll be safe from scrutiny. If you post the here they WILL be examined by others and, I'm terribly sorry, you WILL be seen by most, I think, as responsible for what you say.

Man up, Bob. Tell us why your limitations on our Constitutional rights should be imposed.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


59 posted 04-24-2010 07:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


60 posted 04-24-2010 08:09 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


As a matter of interest Mike, when the narrator of the video says “we the people” what proportion of the people is she referring to?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 04-24-2010 08:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Perhaps the majority that was against his health care program. Perhaps the majority that disapproves of his job performance. Perhaps the majority that thinks the government is broken. Perhaps the majority that feels government spending has gone rampant. Perhaps the majority that DO believe in process, even when he claimed they didn't. Just a guess...

Obama and Pelosi are very demonstrative in announcing continually "what the American people want" while disregarding what the American people want.

We the people are the ones they disregard.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


62 posted 04-24-2010 09:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

The majority by which measure Mike?

Presumably there is a measure, you can’t simply claim to represent the majority and have everyone accept that it’s true based solely on the claim alone. Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry could claim to represent ‘we the people’.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 04-24-2010 09:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

True enough....I would go by polls indicating those results....consistent polls.

It's semantics. No, one can no more say "we the people" and mean all of the people any more than Obama can say "all americans want" and mean all americans, the difference being the polls indicate the "we the people" is much more exact than the "all americans want".

Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry or Pelosi or Reid or Obama could claim to represent "we the people".

If the point you are trying to make is that "We the people" cannot refer to every person, no problem. Any logical person knows that.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


64 posted 04-24-2010 09:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


No Mike I mean a majority of the people, polls aren’t much use when it comes to determining the will of the people where multiple issues are concerned. That’s what elections are for.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 04-24-2010 10:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I disagree. Polls are very useful and normally quite competent. Obama himself is a great user of polls, as he has shown. If you don't want to accept that, that's up to you.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 04-24-2010 10:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I can't wait until November! That is unless the Dems make all the Illegals legal by then and have a new permanent entitlement-minded voting block.

Then We the People may need to find somewhere else to live! I've heard Belize is nice!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


67 posted 04-24-2010 10:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

LOL Have to check on their immigration policy!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 04-24-2010 10:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You may be more right than you know, Denise. Why else do you think Reid is pushing so hard to have illegal aliens made legal right now?


Graham is angry that Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is considering that. Legislation to overhaul immigration laws and grant legal status  to millions of long term immigrants unlawfully in the country could create problems for Republicans in the midterm elections. It's a top priority for Hispanic voters — and most Republicans are opposed. Reid's idea amounts to a "cynical political ploy," Graham asserted.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100425/ap_on_bi_ge/us_climate_bill_congress
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


69 posted 04-24-2010 10:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     And exactly how are my opinions attacks of the First and Second Amendments, Ron?

     There are already limitations on the right of Free Speech.  It is limited to Political Speech, to start off with.  You are not allowed to say things that literally case damage — the fire in the crowded theater example people are fond of speaking about, and there is the so called "Fighting Words" exception as well.  Perhaps you can point out to me how my concerns don't focus around these elements.  I would be thrilled to find out.  That seems to be where the "Hate Speech" notion seems to come from.  I agree that "Hate Speech" should not be singled out as a crime, or be used to make a crime more serious than it already is, but I do believe that it does fit in as one of the generally acknowledged exceptions to the first amendment.  You may disagree with me about this, but you should also be able to see that I am on firm ground in speaking about provocative speech in this way.  I have even made a point of being exceedingly liberal in what I consider to be actual "Hate Speech," though I confess that a lot of the current rhetoric does seem provocative to me.

     It should be construed in the most liberal possible terms when it comes to political speech; even so, there are exceptions recognized in law, as I believe you well know.  If you don't like the fact, then your quarrel is with the law, which established those limits, not with me.

     Your reading of the second amendment is different than mine, it appears.  Your reading of the second amendment appears to be that anybody should be able to have any firearm they choose whenever and wherever they want to have it.  Any attempt to modify that seems to be an infringement of the second amendment to you.

     If I mistake your reading, please correct me.

     My reading is that people have a right to bear arms.  The phrase "bearing arms" is one that in the 18th century was often used to speak of military use rather than civilian use.  Going hunting or walking about with a rifle was not "bearing arms."  One was "bearing arms" when one was part of a military unit.

     In fact, the second amendment links the right to bear arms explicitly with such a use of the term, and speaks of "a well regulated militia."  In fact, my copy of Dr. Johnson defines "Militia" as "The trainbands; the standing force of a nation."  And he quotes for his example, "Let any prince think soberly of his forces, except his militia be good and valiant soldiers."

     The modern use of the term has suffered from linguistic drift, and we now speak of "militias" as the half-baked groups of folks who try to emulate standing forces but who are not by any stretch of the imagination under the discipline of the Standing forces, and which pride themselves in many cases in not being under his command discipline.  Were this the Founders intent, it's doubtful they would have used the word "militia" in speaking about them, and it's hard to imagine that they would have made a point of make the president The Commander in Chief of these forces.

     Again, you may not agree with my thinking, but you'd have a difficult time saying that I don't have a very good and very thoughtful case.  Unless you were simply interested in disposing of it without consideration, which I must confess, at times, seems like a very real possibility.

     Your understandings of the Freedom of Speech part of the first Amendment seems to state that everybody can say whatever they want, no matter what, and to the best of my understanding this is not what the First Amendment is about at all.  If you want to be more exact about what you believe the first amendment is about, please, I'd like to hear.  I actually am interested.  I can learn things from this sort of discussion, though more easily when I'm not being told that I'm anti-democratic and that I don't understand the constitution.

     Tell me your understanding, and we'll talk.

     I suggest that it's not a great idea to go everyplace with you AK-74, including to your local town meeting, because it intimidates the other people there, and because it's a bullying sort of thing to do.  The armed forces don't tell their troops to take their weapons on pass with them; in fact, they sort of frown on it.

     Police are often required to carry their weapons off duty because they are regarded in many jurisdictions as never really being off duty.  I think that's stupid.  Anybody with a gun, for example, when they're drinking has had their ability to make a decent judgement cut to a fraction of what it was because their cortex is the first thing that alcohol affects, and the brain's cortex is the part that makes judgements.

     The more confident a person is of their ability to make a good weapons judgement, the more nervous I get about them.  Sometimes they're right, thank heavens.  Sometimes, they don't do so well.  It's like driving, I suppose.

     Tell me about the logic about speaking of every American's "Right to Drive."

    
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


70 posted 04-24-2010 11:04 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Do you think they could get the votes in the Senate now, or do you think they would resort to Reconciliation again?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 04-24-2010 11:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Whatever it takes, Denise, constitutional or not.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


72 posted 04-25-2010 01:41 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     One man's cynical political ploy is another man's shout of "baby killer" during a crucial House Vote, folks.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


73 posted 04-25-2010 06:42 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I didn’t say polls are useless Mike, you must have misread my post.

I said that polls aren’t very useful when it comes to determining the will of the people where multiple issues are concerned. There is a difference. For instance recent polls suggest that the American people, now that health care reform has been passed, are in favour of it but that doesn’t mean that the midterm elections are going to be another landslide for the Dems. The people may be happy with health care reform but disillusioned with the Governments ineffectual financial reform.

I can’t personally see that happening though, it’s one thing to be disappointed with the Government but without a credible alternative the choices become limited. Sadly the Republicans aren’t presenting a creditable alternative. At present they seem to have straight A’s when it comes to criticism of Democratic policies but are scoring low F’s when it comes to viable alternatives. The Republicans are against health care reform but fighting from a platform of repeal is impossible – ‘we the people’ aren’t likely to appreciate the Republicans taking their health care off them. The Republicans are also opposed to any meaningful financial reform, which puts them squarely in the corner of those popular folk who spearheaded the financial collapse. Now they’re about to shoot themselves in the foot by alienating the ‘legal’ immigrants by focussing on illegal immigrants that won’t even have a vote in November.

On top of that you have the tea party movement that’s more likely to split the Republican voting base than coalesce it.

Unfortunately the Republicans seem to have forgotten how politics works and if they don’t get their finger out November is going to be a whole lot colder than they think.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


74 posted 04-25-2010 09:21 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have not seen polls indicating that the majority of American people are in favor of Obama's health care reform, even though it has passed.

As far as Republicans not having offered anything, there seems to be contrasting views over that. Obama blamed the republicans for not contributing anything (while he  was banning them from his closed door meetings dealing with health care) and the complained that Republicans should not complain, since many of the proposals in it were theirs. Republicans submitted many ideas in the House which Pelosi would not even recognize or allow on the floor for a vote.

As far as your complaints against the Republican party, I agree with you. This fiasco has occured because they allowed it to occur. I can assure you I'm not happy with them, either. They had years to work on thses issues and they didn't. Now that Obama and the Democrats have gotten an inferior plan through, they complain. They allowed it to happen.

I also agree about the Tea Party movement. I support them and what they are doing but I'm afraid they may fracture the Republican party by branching off. If it works out that way, the Democrats will win. If the Tea Party and the Republican party do not get on the same page, we are doomed for another several years to higher taxes, higher costs, and more national debt.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Tea Party Flop?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors