navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Tea Party Flop?
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Tea Party Flop? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423


0 posted 2010-04-14 11:56 AM


http://www.truthout.org/palin-bags-boston-a-live-blog58556
© Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
1 posted 2010-04-14 01:51 PM


Personal blogs are now supposed to mean something? Do you have a statement to make or a question to ask or a point to make?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

2 posted 2010-04-14 04:34 PM


A crowd of 5,000 doesn't sound like much of a flop to me.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F316Q01&show_article=1

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

3 posted 2010-04-15 02:14 PM


Wow what a party! Just got back from the Philly Tax Day Tea Party at Love Park. Great speakers, great turnout!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

4 posted 2010-04-15 02:47 PM


I had the pleasure of speaking with this gentleman after he gave his speech today at the TEA Party.
http://www.examiner.com/x-34856-Philadelphia-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m2d22-Why-I-am-a-Conservative#comments

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
5 posted 2010-04-15 03:00 PM


An excellent article, Denise. Glad you had a good time. Did you shoot anyone, throw racial slurs at anyone or any of those other despicable things tea partiers as so famous for (being accused of doing.) No? And you call yourself a tea-partier??? Imposter!!!!


How does the state-controlled media regard it?

Tea party ending tour in capital it loves to hate (AP)

That's the headline. Do you hate Washington D.C., Denise? No---and neither do other tea-partiers. They may hate what's going on there with Obama in charge but the AP doesn't consider that possibility. Easier to just blame the capital, I suppose...typical rag journalism.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

6 posted 2010-04-15 03:06 PM


Hahahahaha...I got some good shots in with my camera!

The best sign I saw was: Repeal the Big effing Deal!

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

7 posted 2010-04-15 06:17 PM


Tea Parties created as GOP political ploy

“The Tea Party has been billed as an organic grassroots operation, but a newly uncovered document obtained by Politico suggests the movement has been successfully co-opted as a Republican fundraising ploy.

GOP political consultant Joe Wierzbicki floated the proposal a year ago today to create the Tea Party Express, a nationwide bus tour to "give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus." His idea eventually became one of the best known brands in the Tea Party movement.
...............
Wierzbicki, who works for the Sacramento firm Russo Marsh + Rogers, went on to outline how conservative media including Fox News could be leveraged to hype the Tea Party Express. He recommended using "mentions and possibly even promotion from conservative/pro-tea party bloggers, talk radio hosts, Fox News commentators, etc..."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0415/report-tea-parties-political-ploy/


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
8 posted 2010-04-15 06:45 PM


Interesting....not. Do they produce that "newly uncovered document".....nope or did I miss it somewhere?

There were tea party movements all over today, involving tens of thousands of people, getting a fair amount of coverage on the evening news. How many acts of violence were there? None. How many acts of racism were there? None.  No wonder liberals are trying to smear them....and no wonder it isn't working.

They have to resort to classless bumper stickers....but you know all about them, right?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
9 posted 2010-04-15 06:55 PM



You missed it Mike.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM154_teapartyexpress041709.html

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
10 posted 2010-04-15 07:13 PM


Thanks, grinch.

Tea Parties created as GOP political ploy

Are we talking tea parties or the tea party express? The tea parties began as groups of people showing up at town hall meetings, asking questions. There was no organization and no specific leaders. I would assume that the "tea party express" saw an opportunity to organize, due to the actions of these individuals. That doesn't make the tea partiers a GOP-created political ploy. At best it makes the people who came later to cash in on it the organizers. You had asked me once about what the tea partiers wanted and we discussed a website which listed demands. That website was basically the same thing....created by an individual long after the tea party movement had begun.

If it all would be the way Jen's link claims it happened, the the biggest charge against the GOP would be that, through their planning and organizational skills, they were able to come up with a wildly successful fundraising mechanism.


Beats selling T-shirts

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
11 posted 2010-04-15 07:37 PM



I don’t have an issue with the GOP and their attempts to hi-jack the tea party movement Mike – that’s how politics works – as long as you recognise it for what it is it’s no big deal. I don’t even have a problem with the tea partiers themselves, they’ve a right to protest just as much as the next man, a lot of the stuff they say doesn’t make much sense, but each to their own.

I simply clicked a couple of links and found the document, to be honest I haven’t even read it.



JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

12 posted 2010-04-15 07:42 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmttyJEfvu0
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2010-04-15 08:13 PM


thanks again, grinch. The report itself is much ado about nothing, similar to the youtube link of a desperate Keith Obermann, trying to do what he can to raise his sad viewing audience numbers.

Yes, they have the right to protest, as do all other parties. Trying to take away that right through, force, threats or intimidation should not happen in a country that prides itself on diversity and freedom of speech.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

14 posted 2010-04-15 11:53 PM


Yes, you're right Michael. The grass roots Tea Parties came first. Joe Wierzbicki came up with the idea for the TEA Party Express Bus and joined forces with Freedom Works, an already existing PAC, founded 12 years ago, currently headed by Dick Armey.

They have done a superb job of bringing national attention to the entire Tea Party Movement.

Oh, the scandal!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

15 posted 2010-04-16 12:34 PM


Another great article about today's Tea Party in Philadelphia.

quote:
I spoke for a moment with a plainclothes, black Philadelphia Police Detective and asked him about the crowd; his response: “Nah, we don’t worry about these people.”

“That’s fantastic to hear,” I said.  “Could you spread the word?  It seems as though these folks are accused of being racist, hateful and violent wherever they go.”

“Well, as they work their way across the country, people will see that they’re not,” he told me, noting that he had not heard a single racist or hateful remark from the crowd, this year or last year.  “We saw worse in this town that year we hosted the Republican National Convention.”

Bingo.

See, the left is not frightened of us because we’re violent.  The left is frightened of us because we’re not sitting on the sidelines anymore.  Thomas Jefferson once wrote that he knew “of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves,” arguing that “if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education.”  This, he wrote, “is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

The crowd I saw today could tell me what was in the legislation passed and signed into law by this administration.  I saw signs decrying the proposed use of “deem and pass,” by all accounts a fairly complex parliamentary procedure, discussion of which long has been the territory of those accustomed to so-called “inside baseball.”  I personally spoke with people about pending Supreme Court decisions, about legislation currently working its way through committee, about the effect of the proposed financial reform law on the derivatives market.

This was a group of people whose discretion had already been informed by education.  And this was in the center of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — the land of growth-stifling wage taxes, useless trans fat mandates and endless labor union influence.  Hardly an epicenter for conservative thought.  Hardly a meeting place for people who understand the fundamental merits of a limited federal government.

Oh, but it used to be.  In 1776 and 1787, Love Park and everything to the west of 8th Street was described by John Adams as “open country.”  But on the other side of 8th Street, in those days Philadelphia was the center of this fledgling nation.  Philadelphia embodied promise and potential.  Limitless growth.  Boundless freedom.

http://americasright.com/?p=4352

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

16 posted 2010-04-16 01:07 AM


Koch Ind. tries pre-emptive denial, busted for Tea Party instigation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3oaHbDhUkY

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

17 posted 2010-04-16 09:15 AM


Koch Industries: We Don't Fund Tea Parties (Except For The Tea Parties We Fund)

"Koch Industries, a major backer of myriad right-wing causes, issued an unsolicited statement last night in advance of Tax Day claiming it has never provided funding "specifically to support the tea parties." But when TPMmuckraker followed up, a spokeswoman acknowledged that Koch funds one of the most prominent national groups that organizes ... tea parties.

Now, it's well known that Kansas-based Koch, one of the largest private companies in the world, with a hand in everything from chemical production to commodity trading, and associated foundations plow millions into right-wing causes including climate change denial and pro-corporate economics research.

Another of Koch's beneficiaries is Americans for Prosperity, which was founded in part by the company's Executive Vice President, David Koch. He is currently the chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

AFP, based in Washington, has been a key organizer of many tea party events, including Tax Day Tea Party rallies in at least nine states today. (Indeed, we last encountered AFP when a man holding an "I Am AFP!" sign at an Ohio tea party protest berated a pro-health reform rallier who is disabled by Parkinson's.)"

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/right-wing_backers_koch_industries_we_dont_specifi.php?ref=fpb

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
18 posted 2010-04-16 09:18 AM


....and there is some point trying to be made here?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

19 posted 2010-04-16 09:49 AM


I wonder if that is a similar degree of separation that exists between Soros, MediaMatters, SEIU, Acorn, and the White House?

It must have been a slow news day for MSNBC.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

20 posted 2010-04-16 11:04 AM



Tea Party Idiots Exposed By Boston Globe! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrXJ5-EuoE

banished_fairy
Junior Member
since 2006-10-02
Posts 31
Happy in H*ll, PA
21 posted 2010-04-16 04:25 PM


I am new to this and I apologize in advance for putting my two sense in; however I went to the links provided by JenniferMaxwell and was surprised at the overtly blatant liberal mudslinging offered as support for her politcial stance.
My main thought was to comment on the attendance of the tax day party. I think 5,000 is a pretty decent turnout, considering that when President Obama held a "town hall" meeting at my college (Lehigh Carbon Community College) in December,  there were only a little over 1,000 people in the audience and they needed a ticket to attend. The college selected students at random and I recieved my ticket from my local Democratic party for thanks in my years of loyal service. I did not attend the rally, due to my class schedule... but mostly because I had no desire to "honor" a man whose politcal agenda I do not agree with. As a Democrat, I voted for Sen. John McCain. I have noticed that as I have matured and accepted the responsibility of children, family, and a future not just for myself, I have become slightly more conservative (at least in finacial matters). I do support the Democratic ideals of universal freedoms and non-violent confrontation and "expanding opportunity for every American." (www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html)
I can not support an inexperienced, idealistic, seemingly subservient gentleman who campaign used society's fears and sense of guilt to help get elected. I was personally attacked by some of my fellow democrats as being a "racist" after displaying a sign on my front porch (Democratic Moms for McCain). Jennifer, I can appreciate your stance in supporting a man who above all reserves respect for undertaking an extremely difficult job in a time of financial distress. I do believe that President Obama is doing the best job he is capable of. And that last comment proves my point well enough.
As for the Tea Party, whether or not they are being supported by the GOP or whether or not they have all the correct facts about our counrty's spending (or tax cuts or whatever); they do have a point. That point is that it is about time all Americans voice their opinions. And for the sake of our country's future...... USE YOUR OUTSIDE VOICE!!!!!!!! Maybe then, Washington might listen.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

22 posted 2010-04-16 04:38 PM


Welcome to the Alley, Banished Fairy. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2010-04-16 07:14 PM


I second that welcome, Banished Fairy. Nice to see you!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

24 posted 2010-04-17 07:42 AM


Another great sign!
http://twitpic.com/1g8rtp

Welcome Banished Fairy!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

25 posted 2010-04-17 08:03 AM


Allen West speaking at Ft. Lauderdale Tea Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8WaQsDRv1c

Is he in your District, Michael?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

26 posted 2010-04-17 07:14 PM


I had another great Tea Party experience today, The Independence Hall Tea Party, across the square from Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were drafted!

What an inspiration and honor it was to view the very building where it all began and stand on that hallowed ground and remember the courageous founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create the greatest form of government in the history of mankind! I think we too often take it all for granted.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

27 posted 2010-04-17 08:12 PM


Shades of the Bush Dynasty - The Baggers bring back “Free Speech Zones”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUmo-hfIVKA

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2010-04-17 08:34 PM


I envy you, Denise. Sounds like you had a wonderful time!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

29 posted 2010-04-18 11:02 AM


I did, Michael. Thanks!

Here are some video clips of some of the speakers yesterday. In the first clip you can glimpse a portion of Independence Hall in the background, and the second clip features the guy running in my district whom I intend to vote for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3CfgXfubOs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wuIx0iDVj8&feature=youtu.be&a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j--cIrd-U7M&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBumzqomA4w&feature=player_embedded

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

30 posted 2010-04-18 02:24 PM


And a few words from the Community Organizer in Chief and some Kansas City Tea Party folks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INufU69wrSs&feature=player_embedded

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

31 posted 2010-04-18 08:20 PM


Sonnie Johnson, President of the Virginia Chapter of the Fredrick Douglass Foundation at the Roanoke Tea Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mCDNbgIjA&feature=player_embedded#at=15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cdb1I9w6n8&NR=1


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

32 posted 2010-04-20 05:26 AM


Tea Party Crasher - Deprogramming Program http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypsCZORFljE

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

33 posted 2010-04-20 10:49 PM


http://article.nationalreview.com/431899/democrats-hate-that-tea-parties-are-peaceful/mona-charen
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2010-04-21 12:21 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
35 posted 2010-04-21 12:46 PM


Obama's First Year

GOLF: 29 rounds of golf
• Most frequent courses: Fort Belvoir 11 times; Andrews AFB: 8 times.
• George W. Bush played golf 7 times his first year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6119525-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea


http://www.youtube.com/politizoid#p/u/1/f-aZPRUvkbw

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

36 posted 2010-04-21 09:15 AM


I'll have to check out the videos when I get home Micheal. My computer at work doesn't load them very easily.

I thought this was another good article:

Complicating the task of the journalist is that fact that, like snowflakes and fingerprints, no two tea parties are alike. My daughter Celia Farber, a writer whose work has reached the front cover of magazines like Esquire and Harpers, attended the New York Tea Party on April 15. Here's part of her report.

"I wanted to go see for myself rather than rely on quasi-hysterical media depictions. I was moved. Everybody was smiling, and there was a very uplifting feeling in the crowd. I felt no hate at all, nothing extremist or menacing. I felt uplifted and hopeful. I went with no pre-conceptions. Everybody was warm and welcoming. The left is making a big mistake disparaging these people."

When asked if minority Americans were there, Celia saved a lot of words by stating simply, "Yes. It was the same mix of people you see on the New York subway." Was it a hate-Obama rally? "No way," insists Celia. "That's a red herring. It was much more a protest against the countless violations of liberty in recent years, culminating with the banking bailout and the health-care reform bill."


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143197

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

37 posted 2010-04-21 12:16 PM


"QUEERLY BELOVED" - the title of another wnd article. The baggers are gonna love that witty little slur.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

38 posted 2010-04-21 01:19 PM


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
39 posted 2010-04-21 01:52 PM


Nice article, Denise. Yes, when people get over the hate mongering of the lame stream media and want to see for themselves instead of accepting the brainwashing tactics of the left, they are pleasantly surprised at the civility and class shown by the participants.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

40 posted 2010-04-21 03:57 PM


Yeah, all the rhetoric is straight out of the Dem play book: the state controlled media, Clinton, Peolosi, various other congress people and senators, even the President and a few of his spokespeople.

Here's a good sign:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/photo.php?pid=3841529&id=6333396177

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
41 posted 2010-04-21 06:13 PM


LOLOL!!! That sign say it all!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

42 posted 2010-04-22 10:42 AM


Yeah, I thought it was one of the funniest I have seen yet!

Here's an article I thought was good:

Are you reminded of anything in particular by our current government's practice of ruthlessly assailing any and all who criticize it, resulting in people's reluctance to speak out against same? If so, does this alarm or even frighten you?

It damn well should …

Recently, progressive operatives (members of Congress, activists, the establishment press and other far-left elites) have cautioned that those who oppose the Obama administration's policies (the tea-party activists foremost among them) are creating a climate that has the potential to give rise to violence and even domestic terrorism. The admonitions are patently absurd, but these parties are banking on believers in their cause and less-informed Americans who can't or won't investigate the accusations to determine their veracity. They have charged talk radio and other conservative media similarly, and have even floated the concept of regulating the Internet.

All of this is calculated to silence those who disagree with them – nothing less. From the baseless allegations of hostile tendencies and designs, to their reflexive, non sequitur accusations of racism and homophobia, these tactics are the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not representative republics.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=143717


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

43 posted 2010-04-22 03:59 PM



     What it is is the Left taking advantage of Free Speech to identify what it sees and to call it as it sees it.  No wonder the Radical Right is upset.  They've never done well with having to operate in the light.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (04-22-2010 07:23 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

44 posted 2010-04-22 07:34 PM


So the Left's attempts to chill the free speech of the other side is simply characterized as their using their free speech, Bob? The Left holds all the power at the moment and they are abusing that power by their morally bankrupt tactics.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
45 posted 2010-04-22 11:13 PM


I absolutely agree with you, Denise.

On the other hand, lest someone think you sound a tad too righteous, we should also remember that your side of the fence did pretty much the same thing a few years back. Remember when any criticism of the Bush administration was aiding and abetting the terrorists? When anything except unquestioned support of the war(s) was characterized as demoralizing our soldiers? From where I sit, the tactics seem much the same and the goals nearly identical.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
46 posted 2010-04-23 12:03 PM


Yep, and back then it was the Democrats carrying the Kill Bush signs in parades and marching, unconcerned about the "threatening rhetoric" and "incitement to violence", which they now label the tea-partiers as doing.

Ya just can't tell the players without a score card.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

47 posted 2010-04-23 03:13 AM




quote:

All of this is calculated to silence those who disagree with them – nothing less. From the baseless allegations of hostile tendencies and designs, to their reflexive, non sequitur accusations of racism and homophobia, these tactics are the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not representative republics.



     I was responding to this quotation.

     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.  

     I am unhappy about seeing armed folks at any demonstration, and that includes police and national guardsmen.  But most especially that includes the demonstrators themselves, no matter what their politics.  I have trouble believing that there are any demonstrations anyplace where the presence of firearms makes the conversation calmer and more relaxed.  The very presence of a firearm is a danger and a threat.  It is a weapon.

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

     If somebody is not aware of the message of hostility that carrying a weapon conveys in any gathering, they probably should be considered dangerous because of a defect in reality testing.  Some folks, through preference or necessity, hunt for food, but it is doubtful they do so on the sidewalks of a city or through the publicly trafficked areas of a national or state park.

     Allegations that such folks are acting in a hostile fashion seem to me to be acknowledgement of reality.  The presence of firearms does not open the range of discussion, after all, except for those who are armed and who feel their opinions are given extra weight by that fact.

     Discussions of homophobia and racism are, in practice, almost always non-sequiturs.  The subjects are such that folks who are homophobic and racist only open them  when they believe that the climate is favorable and sympathetic.  They have no desire at all to have the subjects raised in any venue when it brings up the least discomfort for them.  However when folks call Congressmen, such as Barney Frank, "Barney F-G," and the like, I guess I'd have to say that Gay bashing and Homophobia really are — or should be, at any rate — part of the discussion.  And when members of the Black Caucus are spat upon publicly, there too, I guess that racism has made itself part of the discussion.  They are very much part of the ongoing flow of events.  They do follow.  They are not non-sequators, and those who would claim otherwise are indulging in an orgy of positive thinking.

     In totalitarian regimes, to conclude, these discussions would not be in the open, back and forth.  

     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.  I don't believe it bothered any of my friends on the Radical Right here at the time.  If somebody did that to me again, I would be fully as bothered today as I was then.

     I suspect that, under this new administration, were this to happen to you or one of your friends, you would be aghast — and I believe, by the way, for good reason — for it would be evidence of the sort of fascist dictatorship that you've been complaining might be coming might actually be showing its ugly head.

     But where were you two years ago?

     And what about the current existence of the legal framework that allows this sort of thing to go on.  It is legal now, you know, and it's bone-headed to be fine with it under one administration and horrified with it under another.  Especially since, friends, we disagree on which administration supplies the greatest threat, and each of us is magnanimously willing to grant that the other may be wrong.    

      

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2010-04-23 08:09 AM


Hey, Denise, how many guns did you see at the tea-parties? After all, if they were walking around with guns, you must have seen a few, at least..any grannies packing heat there??
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
49 posted 2010-04-23 11:08 AM


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

Liberty with your limitations imposed, Bob? Is that still liberty?

quote:
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 yet, presumably, you'd be fine with it, Bob, if the passengers were carrying guns?

quote:
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.

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.



Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

50 posted 2010-04-23 05:57 PM



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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
51 posted 2010-04-23 08:16 PM


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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

52 posted 2010-04-23 08:44 PM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

53 posted 2010-04-23 11:11 PM



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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

54 posted 2010-04-24 04:23 AM




     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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
55 posted 2010-04-24 09:44 AM


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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
56 posted 2010-04-24 10:01 AM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

57 posted 2010-04-24 04:12 PM




     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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
58 posted 2010-04-24 06:28 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
59 posted 2010-04-24 07:20 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
60 posted 2010-04-24 08:09 PM



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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
61 posted 2010-04-24 08:40 PM


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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
62 posted 2010-04-24 09:27 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
63 posted 2010-04-24 09:35 PM


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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
64 posted 2010-04-24 09:56 PM



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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
65 posted 2010-04-24 10:31 PM


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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

66 posted 2010-04-24 10:32 PM


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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

67 posted 2010-04-24 10:39 PM


LOL Have to check on their immigration policy!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
68 posted 2010-04-24 10:41 PM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

69 posted 2010-04-24 10:47 PM



     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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

70 posted 2010-04-24 11:04 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
71 posted 2010-04-24 11:21 PM


Whatever it takes, Denise, constitutional or not.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

72 posted 2010-04-25 01:41 AM




     One man's cynical political ploy is another man's shout of "baby killer" during a crucial House Vote, folks.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
73 posted 2010-04-25 06:42 AM



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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
74 posted 2010-04-25 09:21 AM


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.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

75 posted 2010-04-25 12:25 PM


This was the latest poll after passage that I could find:

quote:

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content /politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill


Do you have a link to a poll showing different results, Grinch? I couldn't find anything.

I don't think we have to worry about the Tea Party members splitting the Republican vote. I think most are intelligent enough to realize that doing so would only help the Democrats.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
76 posted 2010-04-25 01:08 PM



quote:
Do you have a link to a poll showing different results, Grinch? I couldn't find anything.


There’s oodles of them Denise – you must be looking in the wrong places.

For instance, Gallup conducted a poll the day after the bill passed that reported that 49% of respondents said that the passing of the bill was a good thing as opposed to 40% who said it wasn’t.

Your poll figures are interesting though, do you think that the GOP will campaign aggressively for repeal? I hope they don't, I think it’d be a really bad move, especially as they have no credible replacement.

The tea partiers?

They were always going to vote Republican Denise, now a few of them will vote for independents when what the GOP really need is to strengthen their base and capture swing votes from the Democrats. I think the Republicans will struggle in November unless they soften their approach to attract more moderates.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

77 posted 2010-04-25 01:37 PM


This one was taken one week after passage of the bill:
http://www. gallup.com/poll/127037/Americans-Remain-Concerned-Costs-Healthcare-Bill.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics

I hope the Republicans will run a strong campaign on Repeal and Replace and offer a better alternative that actually addresses the problems without creating more problems as Obamacare does.

I think it would be a mistake for Republicans to go moderate. I think they will do better if they represent more closely the principles of their constituents and, as it stands now, Independents are leaning more heavily toward Republicans, without their going more moderate.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

78 posted 2010-04-25 01:58 PM


Here's the Left's version of a Tea Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gJFD6FcGSs&feature=player_embedded#!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

79 posted 2010-04-25 02:23 PM


And one of the violence that the Left always ascribes to the Right. I didn't see any of this at any of the Tea Parties:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/immigration_protest_small_riot_042310

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
80 posted 2010-04-25 03:50 PM


Please share a few of the "oodles" of polls that you refer to, grinch.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
81 posted 2010-04-25 05:05 PM


quote:
Please share a few of the "oodles" of polls that you refer to, grinch.


Why?

Seriously Mike I don’t see the point, I’ve already explained that I don’t think individual polls on specific topics tells us anything about the will of ‘we the people’ so how exactly would offering a bunch of poll results augment or strengthen that position?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
82 posted 2010-04-25 06:23 PM


You're the one to make the claim that recent polls suggest the majority of Americans are in favor of the health care bill. You're the one to claim "oodles" of them. If you didn't think those statements were worthy of mention, why did you? Now that you're asked to verify your claim you can't or won't, hiding behind a claim that they are unimportant. Is it that hard to just admit you misspoke? You have certainly made enough comments about me saying things I stated I couldn't back up or verify, or "making up" facts to fit my argument. This "wiggling" is a new side of you.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
83 posted 2010-04-25 06:38 PM


I said that polls aren't very useful when it comes to determining the will of the people where multiple issues are concerned.

I've already explained that I don't think individual polls on specific topics tells us anything about the will of  we the people

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


Guess I'm still misreading. You don't believe polls are indicative of the will of the people where multiple issues are concerned, you don't believe polls on specific topics tell us anything about the will of we the people, and you don't believe polls are useless. Can you explain that...or does that generate another "why"?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

84 posted 2010-04-25 10:39 PM





     When you ask about the will of "We The People," you're on very difficult ground indeed.  You need to define who, exactly, "We the People" is before you can measure it, and in that case you will probably run into a brick wall, Mike.  Your concept of that group and mine may be very different.

     Does "We the People" mean the constitutionally defined   voters, meaning men who own property, and counting black slaves as three fifths of a person apiece and excluding women and men under 21?  Or does it mean everybody in the country, that is, "public opinion?"  Or does it mean current voters?  Or does it mean something else?  The Democrats typically seek to define this group more inclusively, the Republicans less inclusively over recent years.  Under Aaron Burr in New York, immigrants were very much a factor, and were given voting rights very quickly.  In the Civil War, much to the shame of the Democrats, they sought to exclude many of the freed slaves.

     Today, Republicans seek to exclude as many new voters as they can by suppression of efforts to get new voters registered while Democrats typically tend to favor Motor/voter laws and Voter registration drives.  Each, presumably, defines "We the people" in ways that must fit their actions, right?

     So who are these "We the People" folks, Mike, whose will you'd want us to measure?  

     If you measure them one way, you'll get one set of data, if you measure them another, you'll get another set of data, and the folks in charge of setting that definition more or less control in advance the outcome of the poll.  You'd have to find some method which everybody agreed upon to define the group whose will you're measuring to get any sort of fair measurement, and this I think you are not likely to do.

     My experience is that very frequently the person in charge of asking the questions will be in control of the answers.  A very important part of polling is finding the right question to ask, and the right way to ask it.

     I'm sorry if this complicates things for you, Hoss, but it's the truth.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
85 posted 2010-04-26 11:10 AM


Mr. Bob,

A Plea For Sanity

Post# 266

quote:
While the conclusions about the Harris Poll are by Media Matters, a Left Wing organization, the Poll itself is politically neutral.


And I LOVE this:

quote:
I drew no conclusions about Tea Party Folk from that data that I can recall other than the data that the Poll reported.


?? Huh? No conclusions?? The above is CLASSIC polit-tongue and deserves an amount of applause for the ability to entirely confuse the reader.

and from your latest post:

quote:
If you measure them one way, you'll get one set of data, if you measure them another, you'll get another set of data, and the folks in charge of setting that definition more or less control in advance the outcome of the poll.  You'd have to find some method which everybody agreed upon to define the group whose will you're measuring to get any sort of fair measurement, and this I think you are not likely to do.

     My experience is that very frequently the person in charge of asking the questions will be in control of the answers.  A very important part of polling is finding the right question to ask, and the right way to ask it.


Anywho, by your own conclusion “Media Matters, a Left Wing organization,” was in control of the answers on the Harris Poll, which is unfair and unlikely to be true by your assertion of methodology used to measure such data.

Polls are not the same as elections, as Grinch has tried to point out.

Elections provide a voting box for “We The People" to vote for a person in office, and polls get a few people to participate in online questionnaires or phone surveys. The data collected from polls hardly equals the result of an election, but who's counting

Tea Partiers & Coffee Partiers tout a collective will for their party.

The collective will of a people who vote on Election Day does not reflect the individual will of all, which is just one more element that supports the importance of voting and this may also explain the desperate nature of each collective party to win people over to their party process.

Right now, I believe that Coffee Partiers are trying to paint conservatives as Christian religious freaks who are uneducated nut-cases.

Doesn’t that harm Obama’s character, in light of him being a highly educated--sound of mind Christian, and although he is a Democrat he still has somewhat conservative views?


as the polls are really geared to counter, of course.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
86 posted 2010-04-26 07:11 PM


Regina! Didn't you know that left-wing polls are politically neutral??? Where you been?!?!?!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

87 posted 2010-04-26 10:19 PM



     The Harris Polls were reported by the left wing organization, "Media Matters."  "Media Matters" is one of those organizations that I identify by political affiliation for those folks out there whom I know who do not care to take account of organizations which are left wing.  I do this so that I am being as straight as possible with the people I am talking to.  I think you have a right to know when I put in a reference to a Left wing organization.  I don't want to feel that I am being deceptive.  I feel that keeping you informed of this sort of thing is a courtesy.

     The Harris organization is not a left wing organization.  "Media Matters" was, however, quoting them.  They had their own take on what The Harris Organization had to say; and I wanted you to be aware that "Media Matters" was using the Harris Organization to make their point.  While "Media Matters" is very definitely a left wing Organization, that is, its viewpoint is a left wing viewpoint, and one to which I personally, subscribe, The Harris Organization is independent and neutral, the same way many other polling organizations are.

     If I thought The Harris Organization had a specific political agenda, I would say so.  In case none of you have noticed, I do try to be careful about that.  Actually, perhaps none of you have noticed.  

     I believe my point still stands.

     That is, Everybody makes claims to represent "We the People."  If you're trying to design a poll that measures that question, however, that puts you in a different position.  "We The People" in the constitution was not a description of voters, since there had not actually been anything but a sort of congressional election as yet, and the people who had voted were only a limited segment of the population.  The Preamble was addressing something else, it seems to me at least, something beyond white, male property-owners.

     And if you're going to claim to represent them, you're going to have to define them first.

     Everybody's a bit nervous to do that, Left and Right.

     It's a little tough to claim to be speaking for people you're too nervous to define.  I'd think that "We The People," at its heart, would have to be just about everybody, a sort of consensus of the nation, much like what emerged right after 9/11, or right after Pearl Harbor.  I think that most of us can only dream of being able to speak for that.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

88 posted 2010-04-27 09:51 PM


Here's a poll taken on April 24th.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64746

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
89 posted 2010-04-28 08:50 AM


LOL, Mike. This could all be settled by a nation-wide elementary poll.

Do you love Obama?

[ ] yes

[ ] no


Oh, darn! No that won’t work! Without a [maybe] in there, it’s as boffed as any other poll.

quote:
It's a little tough to claim to be speaking for people you're too nervous to define.  I'd think that "We The People," at its heart, would have to be just about everybody, a sort of consensus of the nation, much like what emerged right after 9/11, or right after Pearl Harbor.  I think that most of us can only dream of being able to speak for that.


For me, that’s a beautiful thing, Mr. Bob. Because: If you are able to define someone, you are able to confine them.

Many people outside this Nation can only dream of liberty.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
90 posted 2010-04-28 09:53 AM


Not that simple, Regina. Loving Obama has nothing to do with it. Yep, there are people who will claim that. They will claim that, if you don't like his policies, don't like the higher taxes coming on everything, don't like his redistribution of wealth dreams, don't like the way he has plunged the country into a debt they can't pay for generations, don't like the hoods he has surrounded himself with, don't like his bills that get passed with no one reading them, don't like the unemployment rate that keeps going up with him ignoring it, don't like him not having the time to deal with unemployment but having the time to call police stupid while he jumps in to defend a personal professor friend and having time to marshall forces and berate a state which has the audacity to act on a topic he has NOT acted on, don't like the mounting campaign promises broken, don't like the American people being shut out of policy-shaping
which concerns all of us, don't like the way he travels the world, apologizing for the actions of the United States....if people don't like him, it's not because of those things, oh, it's because they don't love him, or he's black or he's from Chicago or some other trumped up excuse.

Yeah, right.....

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
91 posted 2010-04-28 10:49 AM


quote:
Many people outside this Nation can only dream of liberty.

Many people inside this nation have the same dream, Regina.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
92 posted 2010-04-28 11:02 AM


True enough, Ron, and that number will be growing, immeasurably.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

93 posted 2010-04-28 04:19 PM




quote:

For me, that’s a beautiful thing, Mr. Bob. Because: If you are able to define someone, you are able to confine them.



     I think you have a point there, Regina.  I wasn’t, however, the one who was claiming to know the will of “We the People.”  It’s difficult enough to know your own mind and heart, left alone try to speak for the Nation.  You get into advanced Rhetoric when you try to do that.  Kierkegaard’s Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing sort of stuff, or, on the other end of the moral spectrum, and Hitler’s “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.

quote:

Many people outside this Nation can only dream of liberty.



     That’s very true.

     What’s also very true is that many people outside this country  have it.  Many people inside this country feel they have it as well.  Some people inside this country feel they have it and that it is endangered for various reasons.  I am among that last group.

quote:

     don't like his redistribution of wealth dreams,



     I’ve addressed most of the other statements in this familiar litany in other forums, Mike.  You know that I disagree, and you know why I disagree.  I lack the energy right now to rehash stuff that I’ve already addressed fairly directly.  Perhaps another time.  This accusation does seem a bit odd to me.  It seems odd because you haven’t stopped to think about it in a fairly obvious way.  Most any tax bill is a bill about redistribution of wealth.  Pretty much every state gets taxed by the same Federal codes, doesn’t it?  Yet some states get more than they pay in overall, and some get less.  Which is Florida?  As you a net gainer or are you a net loser?  I don’t know, though my guess would be that overall, you probably get more than you give in taxes.  Perhaps I’m wrong.  It’s that way with a lot of the Southern states.

     Do you object to that?

     That’s redistribution of wealth and most of the old confederacy lies like an old gator at the bottom of a pond, dreaming of slavery and blood and killing yankees, and funds those reptile dreams on money supplied by the wealthier and more populous states.  You don’t complain about that sort of redistribution of wealth, Mike, do you?  It builds your roads, and helps you with your poverty programs and with unemployment when they happen, helps fund schools and the VA and all sorts of stuff.

     The tax cuts since 2000 massively redistributed wealth upwards, out of the pockets of the middle classes and the poor and into the pockets of the very wealthy.  Those were Republican Redistributive dreams, and they borrowed lots and lots of money from China and from other places to help funs that tax cut.  We are still paying for that tax cut, Mike.  It was supposed to be a stimulus, remember, and instead of being a stimulus, it cost the economy initially twenty-five cents on each dollar we borrowed, and now we are paying the interest to china.  As will our Grandchildren unless we can do something about it.  That’s where the debt came from.  Now you’re upset about the money to pay that debt back?  Where might you have been when the debt was being incurred, Mike?  You were having a party, as I recall.  You thought it was wonderful!

     When I said that somebody would have to pay for it, you laughed at me.  Now you’re rewriting history.

     You not only didn’t object to redistributing the wealth upward, you had the equivalent of a toga party while it was happening.  You said that it would pay for itself.  The wealthy folks didn’t put the money back into the economy the way poor folks would have.  Poor folks more or less have to put it back, because they’re often a paycheck away from starving, so the money goes right back into cheese and crackers and beef and rent and stuff like that.

     Money redistributed to them, Mike, tends to make the economy work.  It makes money for the country.  If the money we redistributed upward during the Bush years cost us twenty-five cents on the dollar out of the economy, the money we redistribute downward tends to generate about a buck twenty into the economy.  It is an investment.

     I wrote about the references for this the last time I gave details about redistribution and tax cuts.  

     About President Obama’s failure to act on Immigration, I’d suggest that you check the Republicans who have refused to act upon it as well, and not simply during this administration.  The last solid action we had on the subject was during the Reagan administration, and those actions would never be allowed during this administration.  They would certainly not be allowed by the Republicans, who would howl at the very prospect, and certainly the Democrats would have terrible trouble getting legislation like that by these days as well.

     I agree that the problem should be Federal, by the way.

     The bill jointly suggested by Shumer and Graham a few weeks back in an op ed piece they both authored for the New York Times was scuttled when Graham backed out of it.  I think it would have been a good start.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
94 posted 2010-04-28 05:24 PM


Ron & Mike,

my context was in reference to how a people
may not be able to experience any such notion of liberty. No freedoms granted or any kind of independent pursuits allowed. And some may even hate the foundations of a sovereign nation so badly they want to annihilate it, as Mr. Bob pointed out with Pearl Harbor & 9/11.  

As far as the American Dream?

Silly dreamers! Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness is just for kids?

I'm * a * big * kid * now

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
95 posted 2010-04-28 05:55 PM


Thanks Mr. Bob. We agree that we can't define the "We's" and, no matter how diverse we are, "We" are supposed to be the first order of Government, not the other way around.

I think that's one major thorn of unrest in America right now.

For example: Are We supposed to tell the Gov how much of our money they get to keep, or does the Gov get to tell us how much of our money We get to keep, etc...

And please tell why you feel your liberty is in danger? I don't think I've caught that from you before in your writings.


Mike, Exactly!

The things you wrote are WHY I believe casual polls to be useless at tempering a fully developed mindset for or against a group or person. Like you said, one may love him, but dislike every single thing about his politics. But according to the polls an alarming number of conservatives think he's the Anti-Christ. Mmmm...ok, so does that mean liberals think he's Christ?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

96 posted 2010-04-28 07:50 PM


LOL Some seem to Regina!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

97 posted 2010-04-28 08:28 PM


Check out the video towards the bottom of the page. SWAT was called out because the President was at the Convention Center and he needed protection from the Tea Party protesters! Seems they might be more useful in Arizona.

http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/04/28/team-obama-calls-out-swat-team-on-tea-party-patriots/

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
98 posted 2010-04-28 08:38 PM


WOWEE!!! That's an incredible video! Calling out the SWAT team on the grandmas? I'll bet those officers with their facemasks down were shaking with fear....or was that laughter??

Hey, Barack!!! They could use a little of that in Arizona where actual rioting is going on.

The man gets more pathetic every day.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

99 posted 2010-04-28 10:36 PM


I guess it's all part of political theatre.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

100 posted 2010-04-28 11:25 PM




     This may be what you say it is.  What I saw, however, was the same stip of video shown twice.  That video showed a line of police in riot gear — not SWAT teams — marched up to a halt in the middle of the street, and then dispatched to make sure the crowd was standing on the sidewalk.  Perhaps one of you saw something that marked these police as SWAT squad members, but if so, they were not noticably carrying any long arms or even any riot shields or tear gas, nor were they acting in any threatening manner, as seems to fit the mood of the crowd, which was likewise quiet and peaceful.

     If any of you have any observations that contradict what I observed, I'd appreciate you pointing them out to me.  I'm particularly curious why the same line of police marching to the same point in the same street with the same audio is shown twice.  My thought is to make it look more threatening — as Denise says, though certainly in a different context, I'm sure, "Political theater."

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

101 posted 2010-04-28 11:43 PM




     Certainly, Regina.  I feel the liberties in this country are more or less under constant assault.  I don't know that it's by any particular party, truth be told.  I found that the most recent problem that I've had with this sort of stuff has to do with The PATRIOT ACT, which was pretty much pulled off the shelf ready-made.  Senator Lieberman was instrumental in getting that one through, and he was (sort of) a Democrat, and the bill found wide bipartisan support.

     It made wide inroads into freedom of speech.  It pretty much put aside a lot of protections against wire taps, and gave the President extraordinary powers.  The powers accrued to President Bush at the time, which I really did not like, but the fact that they have continued into this administration is evidence that once these things get voted it, it's very hard to get rid of them.  The difficulties with habeas at Gitmo have opened the way to domestic violations of habeas corpus rights, and towards the end of President Bush's administration the posse comitatus laws were allowed to lapse and they have not been reinstated.

     Any single one of these things would and should have been grounds for worry.  All of them together are certainly grounds for worry about the security of our personal liberties.  It doesn't matter who was president when these things were passed.  It matters that they have not been repealed, either under the Bush administration or under the Obama administration.  This is tolerable, clearly, because I have only been running my mouth about it.  But it is well worth running my mouth about.

     I could get into the corporatism that I think is part and parcel of this stuff, but I don't want to get terribly long-winded.

     I don't know if this is the sort of material you were asking about, Regina; so if you want to know more, you'll have to ask more specifically.  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Tea Party Flop?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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