The only up side I really see, is that the US has wracked up a s!#% load of their debt on military spending. That makes it a lot easier to tell creditors to go f!%$ themselves when they come knocking on your door.
Austerity Measures + Weakening of the Federal Government =(potentially) runaway local governments that decide to define austerity using their own slide rule(if at all).I concur.None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
Local governments tend to be more representative. In the context of a constitutional republic I find local governments to be the lesser evil.
|
Local governments tend to be more representative. In the context of a constitutional republic I find local governments to be the lesser evil.Austerity Measures + Weakening of the Federal Government =(potentially) runaway local governments that decide to define austerity using their own slide rule(if at all).I concur.None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
Local governments are much closer to those they rule - and locals have a longer memory for bad decisions of local politicians than of national ones. Local activism has more effect, and local citizens that get upset have a much better chance of running against and winning against politicians that haven't kept their constituents happy.
another big deal is local governments compete with one another. if New Jersey really screws up, people move to nearby states. New Jersey either figures things out and fixes their issues, or they lose their tax base.
It's not that local gov't doesn't screw up. it's that the consequences are more likely to be more immediate for the politicians if they do and the scope of the screw up is more limited.
Local governments tend to be more representative. In the context of a constitutional republic I find local governments to be the lesser evil.Austerity Measures + Weakening of the Federal Government =(potentially) runaway local governments that decide to define austerity using their own slide rule(if at all).I concur.None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
Local governments are much closer to those they rule - and locals have a longer memory for bad decisions of local politicians than of national ones. Local activism has more effect, and local citizens that get upset have a much better chance of running against and winning against politicians that haven't kept their constituents happy.
another big deal is local governments compete with one another. if New Jersey really screws up, people move to nearby states. New Jersey either figures things out and fixes their issues, or they lose their tax base.
It's not that local gov't doesn't screw up. it's that the consequences are more likely to be more immediate for the politicians if they do and the scope of the screw up is more limited.
Also they can't hide their stupidity for years by printing more money.
Local governments tend to be more representative. In the context of a constitutional republic I find local governments to be the lesser evil.Austerity Measures + Weakening of the Federal Government =(potentially) runaway local governments that decide to define austerity using their own slide rule(if at all).I concur.None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
Still choosing evil with a really thin excuse if(when) things go wrong.
Local governments tend to be more representative. In the context of a constitutional republic I find local governments to be the lesser evil.Austerity Measures + Weakening of the Federal Government =(potentially) runaway local governments that decide to define austerity using their own slide rule(if at all).I concur.None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
Local governments are much closer to those they rule - and locals have a longer memory for bad decisions of local politicians than of national ones. Local activism has more effect, and local citizens that get upset have a much better chance of running against and winning against politicians that haven't kept their constituents happy.
another big deal is local governments compete with one another. if New Jersey really screws up, people move to nearby states. New Jersey either figures things out and fixes their issues, or they lose their tax base.
It's not that local gov't doesn't screw up. it's that the consequences are more likely to be more immediate for the politicians if they do and the scope of the screw up is more limited.
This could create a "not it" mentality however where few people are interested in joining local government because of a vindictive public.
|
|
This could create a "not it" mentality however where few people are interested in joining local...
Local governments are much closer to those they rule - and locals have a longer memory for bad decisions of local politicians than of national ones. Local activism has more effect, and local citizens that get upset have a much better chance of running against and winning against politicians that haven't kept their constituents happy.another big deal is local governments compete with one another. if New Jersey really screws up, people move to nearby states. New Jersey either figures things out and fixes their issues, or they lose their tax base.
It's not that local gov't doesn't screw up. it's that the consequences are more likely to be more immediate for the politicians if they do and the scope of the screw up is more limited.
Of course. But that's even worse at the national level, because at the national level not only is it easier to say "It's too big/difficult/scary for me to do something about all that's wrong," but the harm done by those arrogant enough to believe they know how to rule our lives better than we ourselves do is bigger and more difficult to fix.
If you can find a no evil solution to the formation of government, great! I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing in that department. Local government, closer to the people it's ruling, is almost always going to be forced to be more responsive and responsible.
There is in fact a correlation between per capita size of the bureaucracy and wealth of a state though its unclear if its just that wealthy states can afford big bureaucracies or if big bureaucracies some how promote wealthy states and there are exceptions - Japan's bureaucracy is quite small at around 4% of the population. Note however that the smaller a bureaucracy is the more rule bound it tends to be. Small bureaucracies have a very hard time being dynamic and few resources available for reviewing unusual or exceptional circumstances or even for self analysis to see if a policy is or is not working properly. Hence Japan is world famous for being a land of red tape.That is interesting, I did not know that. Do you have the sources on that statement? Perhaps one correlation could be thus: any country needs rules to govern its society (I know that some folks would argue that, but in the end, there are always rules - anarchy is as much an utopian idea as communism is IMO). The higher the complexity of a society (and perhaps the bigger the population density, but I´m not sure), the higher the amount and complexity of the rules, and the bigger the government. If the size of the government does not correlate to the complexity of the society (as in Japan), the less flexibility in reacting to things outside the rules is there. The communism example goes in a similar direction, only that flexible reactions were not even wanted in centralistic government. For if the government is not able to react with flexibility to unusual circumstances, but progress and in extension, wealth needs some flexibility to develop properly. Just some thoughts.
Stefan
My source Slavic Review Article. Mostly talks about the bureaucracy of the Soviet Union and Russia but mentions this correlation.
As an aside I think population density would be on some kind of a curve. Up to a point you don't need much. After that point you need a full on city infrastructure and that infrastructure grows with the size of the city up to a point as new departments are needed but eventually few new departments are needed and the growth should slow again as, once you have all the bases covered much of the time any given department needs 5 people just to exist but easily gets along with 10 even in the most massive of cities.
In some sense I think Japan is an example of that. Part of the reason they can get away with a small bureaucracy is because its basically a small island with a lot of people stuffed on it (It's smaller then New Foundland) it also has pretty much a single habitat (mountainous island) and all exists in one climate. So if its January in Tokyo, its pretty much the same weather wise everywhere else in Japan as well. Compare to the US, Canada, or Russia where every bureaucratic office in our capitals needs a smaller version in every region just to deal with local conditions thus creating a vast network of departments that all do roughly the same thing.
Clearly here shrinking and centralizing the bureaucracy would save time and money but at the cost of individualizing the service for the local regions.
I think that's one of the reason that Canada's taxes tend to be considered on the high side. You have a relatively small population spread over a large area. Connecting all those communities with roads and electricity etc... requires a large infrastructure that is expensive to maintain.
This could create a "not it" mentality however where few people are interested in joining local...
Local governments are much closer to those they rule - and locals have a longer memory for bad decisions of local politicians than of national ones. Local activism has more effect, and local citizens that get upset have a much better chance of running against and winning against politicians that haven't kept their constituents happy.another big deal is local governments compete with one another. if New Jersey really screws up, people move to nearby states. New Jersey either figures things out and fixes their issues, or they lose their tax base.
It's not that local gov't doesn't screw up. it's that the consequences are more likely to be more immediate for the politicians if they do and the scope of the screw up is more limited.
Of course. But that's even worse at the national level, because at the national level not only is it easier to say "It's too big/difficult/scary for me to do something about all that's wrong," but the harm done by those arrogant enough to believe they know how to rule our lives better than we ourselves do is bigger and more difficult to fix.
If you can find a no evil solution to the formation of government, great! I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing in that department. Local government, closer to the people it's ruling, is almost always going to be forced to be more responsive and responsible.
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. Effectively gelding/eliminating an area of government is not going to directly result in enhanced responsiblity for the remainder- I'd be willing to place a substantial bet that quite the opposite would happen due to a lack of oversight.
|
|
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. Effectively gelding/eliminating an area of government is not going to directly result in enhanced responsiblity for the remainder- I'd be willing to place a substantial bet that quite the opposite would happen due to a lack of oversight.
Nobody's talking about getting rid of federal government. It's simply about returning the federal government back to its legal powers under the Constitution.
There are some things that simply have to be managed on a federal level. We tried doing without right after the Revolutionary war, but the Articles of Confederation didn't provide enough cohesion for the United States to be a single nation.
Oversight. There's an interesting word. I think that the best oversight any government can have is a free, educated and involved citizenry. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that.
Oversight of local affairs of government by federal government, whether congress, a bureaucrat or some executive branch appointed official of some sort is going to lessen the competition between local government ideas and slows the responsiveness of local government. It also, I think makes it easier for local government to blame their problems on others (in this case federal government).
Local governments should be competing with each other to form the better model for a successful, prosperous civil society - the people will choose which model works best by moving there - rather than competing for federal dollars taken from residents of their own and other localities.
A free society cannot exist where people would rather abrogate their personal responsibilities than show self restraint. Once we need to be ruled by an authoritarian hand to act in "our own best interests" rather than be allowed to choose what we think is in our own best interest...we're no longer free.
Nobody's talking about getting rid of federal government.
Certainly I agree that you're not -- your points are clear, cogent, and mostly beyond dispute. Sadly, though, I wouldn't say "nobody" is talking about it -- the Tea Party enthusiasts that I know personally and talk to about this stuff (cousins, co-workers, etc.) mostly talk about "taking back America," which upon questioning seems to involve (a) killing all immigrants; (b) killing all liberals; and (c) overthrowing the gubbermint -- after which presumably there would be a utopian world where everyone is Christian and spends all their time in a blood-filled orgy of gunning down "bad people" and doesn't have to work because everyone magically becomes an "entrepreneur" who doesn't pay taxes.
Obviously, you personally, and most people on the forums, are thinking on a level far above this. I can therefore respect your opinions -- indeed, I agree with most of them! I don't, however, think that there's a party that actually supports them. High-profile people like Beck and Palin seem to more represent the line of thinking described in the above paragraph -- that mindlessly precipitating genocide will somehow lead us to Heaven -- because I have yet to hear actual concrete nonviolent solutions from them, as opposed to griping, nostalgia, vague platitudes, and aimless rabble-rousing. That's a VERY long shot from the Founding Fathers, who had a new provisional government set up BEFORE they started the Revolution.
If the Tea Party as a whole could get their act together, put their Jacobean dreams of bloody revolution as an end in itself on hold, and maybe think about specific issues in the cold light of logic, they'd find me a supporter. Until then, their path of action seems a LOT closer to the French Revolution than the American Revolution.
Nobody's talking about getting rid of federal government.Certainly I agree that you're not -- your points are clear, cogent, and mostly beyond dispute. Sadly, though, I wouldn't say "nobody" is talking about it -- the Tea Party enthusiasts that I know personally and talk to about this stuff (cousins, co-workers, etc.) mostly talk about "taking back America," which upon questioning seems to involve (a) killing all immigrants; (b) killing all liberals; and (c) overthrowing the gubbermint -- after which presumably there would be a utopian world where everyone is Christian and spends all their time in a blood-filled orgy of gunning down "bad people" and doesn't have to work because everyone magically becomes an "entrepreneur" who doesn't pay taxes.
Obviously, you personally, and most people on the forums, are thinking on a level far above this. I can therefore respect your opinions -- indeed, I agree with most of them! I don't, however, think that there's a party that actually supports them. High-profile people like Beck and Palin seem to more represent the line of thinking described in the above paragraph -- that mindlessly precipitating genocide will somehow lead us to Heaven -- because I have yet to hear actual concrete nonviolent solutions from them, as opposed to griping, nostalgia, vague platitudes, and aimless rabble-rousing. That's a VERY long shot from the Founding Fathers, who had a new provisional government set up BEFORE they started the Revolution.
If the Tea Party as a whole could get their act together, put their Jacobean dreams of bloody revolution as an end in itself on hold, and maybe think about specific issues in the cold light of logic, they'd find me a supporter. Until then, their path of action seems a LOT closer to the French Revolution than the American Revolution.
I couldn't put it better, both with the tip of the hat towards Ms. Door as well as the concerns regarding the Tea Party. Good stuff as usual, Kirth.
Those crazy Tea Party folks with their calls for torture and making ear necklaces.
Those crazy Tea Party folks with their calls for torture and making ear necklaces.
Have no plan beyond revolution =/= torture and ear necklaces. If you think both are equally untrue, go ahead and point to where the main Tea Party representatives spell out that plan with concrete details.
|
|
Re: the Tea Party, I consider myself a Tea Party person. I've heard people who disagree with the Tea Party say that Tea Party people want to destroy the government, hate minorities and all immigrants, but I've never met a Tea Party person like that myself. So I tend to think you're either really unlucky in who you meet or partial to hyperbole.
I've become very weary of the argument that being for enforcing current immigration law and against illegal immigration means I'm anti-immigrant. I want current immigration law enforced, the border's integrity protected and I want legal immigration made easier.
::shrug::
Those crazy Tea Party folks with their calls for torture and making ear necklaces.Have no plan beyond revolution =/= torture and ear necklaces. If you think both are equally untrue, go ahead and point to where the main Tea Party representatives spell out that plan with concrete details.
So is the problem that they don't have a clear end-goal, or "(a) killing all immigrants; (b) killing all liberals; and (c) overthrowing the gubbermint"?
So I tend to think you're either really unlucky in who you meet or partial to hyperbole.
I am prone to hyperbole, we all know, but in this case maybe I've been unlucky, so I'll stick with direct quotes:
Are all members nut cases? Obviously not. Jess, you're not. But that's not to say that the movement as a whole isn't pre-occupied with the "overthrowing" part at the expense of the "post-revolution planning" part of things.
So is the problem that they don't have a clear end-goal, or "(a) killing all immigrants; (b) killing all liberals; and (c) overthrowing the gubbermint"?
I think the problem is that too many of the sheep don't think past (a), (b), and (c) to come up with an end goal, and so (a)-(c) BECOME the end goal by default. Again, I don't know of anyone on this thread who falls under this description. I do know a lot of people who do, and I hear a lot of Tea Party voices basically cementing that reality.
So I tend to think you're either really unlucky in who you meet or partial to hyperbole.I am prone to hyperbole, we all know, but in this case maybe I've been unlucky, so I'll stick with direct quotes:
"I believe in freedom and the Tea Party. That's why I'm going to volunteer on my vacation to help the Minutemen patrol the border and shoot the illegals." (co-worker; name redacted)
"All immigrants are parasites on society. Luckily, the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment as a defense against them." (different co-worker, unaffiliated with the first)
"Progressives are all Communists who hate Americans. I wish they'd just die." (my cousin in Arizona, an ardent Tea Party-ist, is fond of this line)
"We have revolutionaries here in America speaking -- American citizens speaking -- about an open violent revolution and no one will cover it!" (Glenn Beck)
"We're arguing that the states should be empowered because this giant government doesn't work. We cant afford it. So you dismantle the government and bring the control locally there." (Glenn Beck -- note he specifies 'dismantle,' not 'reduce' -- without any of the intelligent caveats you provided) "I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." (Sharron Angle)
"More and more people are losing faith in the process of democracy because it is more about passion than logic. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that tyranny may have to be removed from power by arms if peaceful means fail. The debt bomb must be disarmed before it explodes. If it does go off, no one escapes. I don't mean to ramble, but there is no sound-bite explanation. Ms. Angle over-condensed what I just expressed by skipping to the final alternative." (Matt Davis)
"The exact...
Your thoughts, Jess Door?
I don't really understand the Tea Party movement. I've read their basic manifesto, but I just don't see how it could work in practice. If you have no government control, the rich/big business ends up with all the power and the remaining 90+% of the population is hung out to dry. One of the reasons why Canada didn't have a banking crisis the way the US did is because of government regulations. If the US government hadn't deregulated their financial sector, America's middle class (the very people the movement is founded by) wouldn't have been f*%!ed over by the banks the way they were. This is a perfect example of why government (government working for the people) is important and what happens when businesses are free to do what they want, and yet the Tea Party seems to want more deregulation. In Canada we don't just let our banks and corporations do whatever they want (well they still get away with too much, but less so than in the states) it is a recipe for disaster because a corporation's sole purpose is to make money for it's shareholders. If the government doesn't enforce laws to keep how corporations do business in check they will do whatever they want. They aren't going to show "personal responsibility" (a tea party tenant) unless there is an overseeing body to enforce "personal responsibility" . Having a strong government can work well, as long as the people make sure that government is working for them.
Of course, I don't think the American government has been working for the people in the last several administrations. It has been working for big business at the expense of the people, and this is the real problem. Americans seem to have trouble seeing that corporate greed is their real enemy because the country was founded on the idea that every citizen has the right to be free to try to get rich, so if you criticize big business you are essentially criticizing the entire foundation of the country, and no patriotic american wants to do that.
When you cut out government services (as the Tea party wishes to do), you increase the divide between the haves and the have nots. The rich can afford things like health care, education, day care and other services that a more socialist government would provide for all the people for free, while those with less means end up on the curb.
The other issue is that the whole idea of "personal freedom" connotes an every man for himself mentality (you are basically trying to run a country with a Chaotic Neutral Alignment). A social democratic government is built more on the notion of community and helping each other out. The rich kick in a far bigger share of tax income to help support programs that benefit those with less than them because they have more than they need already, and it is showing "personal responsibility" for them to look out for their fellow countrymen. Government run most of the programs because the government is there to work for the people not to make money. The key is to make sure that government runs these programs efficiently, and doesn't let people milk them. Obviously this has been an issue with things like welfare where some individuals have abused the system and been able to live off the government and the charity of hard working tax payers without giving anything back.
I can understand why American's are angry and feel the need to" take back their country", so I can see why the Tea Party rhetoric might sound appealing, but when you actually stop and think about the ideas and the consequences of putting them into practice, I just don't see them benefiting the people the way they think they will. In the end they will end up with an even bigger divide between rich/poor and the people that this movement is founded by will be worse off than they are now.
One other question. What is the Tea Party stance on the military? The military is a huge government service that costs tax payers tons of money and essentially gives the government its power. As a result, according to Tea Party logic, Tea Party members should be completely in favor of vastly reducing the size of the US army, but I'm not sure if that is the case.
Are all members nut cases? Obviously not. Jess, you're not. But that's not to say that the movement as a whole isn't pre-occupied with the "overthrowing" part at the expense of the "post-revolution planning" part of things
The part of the statement that I question is 'the movement as a whole'.
Like Jess, I haven't met the loons you describe. And if your description is accurate they are certainly loons. Do they represent the majority? Does Beck or Palin? I have no idea. I can only go by the people I have met and how they talk. It's nothing like you describe. Thankfully.
Are all members nut cases? Obviously not. Jess, you're not. But that's not to say that the movement as a whole isn't pre-occupied with the "overthrowing" part at the expense of the "post-revolution planning" part of thingsThe part of the statement that I question is 'the movement as a whole'.
Like Jess, I haven't met the loons you describe. And if your description is accurate they are certainly loons. Do they represent the majority? Does Beck or Palin? I have no idea. I can only go by the people I have met and how they talk. It's nothing like you describe. Thankfully.
Perhaps the Tea Party's cellular structure is its biggest weakness in this regard- anyone can put together a Tea Party X or X Tea Party and declare themselves part of the movement and say more or less anything?
Perhaps the Tea Party's cellular structure is its biggest weakness in this regard- anyone can put together a Tea Party X or X Tea Party and declare themselves part of the movement and say more or less anything?Are all members nut cases? Obviously not. Jess, you're not. But that's not to say that the movement as a whole isn't pre-occupied with the "overthrowing" part at the expense of the "post-revolution planning" part of thingsThe part of the statement that I question is 'the movement as a whole'.
Like Jess, I haven't met the loons you describe. And if your description is accurate they are certainly loons. Do they represent the majority? Does Beck or Palin? I have no idea. I can only go by the people I have met and how they talk. It's nothing like you describe. Thankfully.
The way I see it is that any movement that is put together will have a more "radical" element to it. The civil rights movement of the 1960's was a good and noble movement. I think we can all agree on that. Did it have individuals in it that were less than savory? Yes, it did. The way Kirth demeans the whole Tea Party movement for the actions and words of a few isn't fair. You know, I can get quotes from some of the top ranking liberals in America that have said things that could be construed as unpatriotic. Can I now label all liberals Anti-American? No, I can't. I'm not sure I can even label the ones who have said questionable things as being unpatriotic because deep down I know we all say stupid things at times.
The way I see it is that any movement that is put together will have a more "radical" element to it. The civil rights movement of the 1960's was a good and noble movement. I think we can all agree on that. Did it have individuals in it that were less than savory? Yes, it did. The way Kirth demeans the whole Tea Party movement for the actions and words of a few isn't fair. You know, I can get quotes from some of the top ranking liberals in America that have said things that could be construed as unpatriotic. Can I now label all liberals Anti-American? No, I can't. I'm not sure I can even label the ones who have said questionable things as being unpatriotic because deep down I know we all say stupid things at times.Perhaps the Tea Party's cellular structure is its biggest weakness in this regard- anyone can put together a Tea Party X or X Tea Party and declare themselves part of the movement and say more or less anything?Are all members nut cases? Obviously not. Jess, you're not. But that's not to say that the movement as a whole isn't pre-occupied with the "overthrowing" part at the expense of the "post-revolution planning" part of thingsThe part of the statement that I question is 'the movement as a whole'.
Like Jess, I haven't met the loons you describe. And if your description is accurate they are certainly loons. Do they represent the majority? Does Beck or Palin? I have no idea. I can only go by the people I have met and how they talk. It's nothing like you describe. Thankfully.
I agree with the first part of this statement, but not the second. When even a good friend of mine says something stupid, I call them out on it, or would expect someone else to. Just because we should not judge the whole by the actions of a few, does not mean we should give the few a pass because of the better nature of the many.
The way Kirth demeans the the Tea Party movement for the actions and words of the majority of those he's heard and/or met isn't fair.
With caveats in bold, to reflect what I've actually been saying, but OK, I'm willing to accept that maybe I've been unfair. Here's an easy chance to convince me for sure:
The thing is, it's all too easy to pull a "One True Scotsman" thing here. Who actually does speak for the Tea Party? Most people would say Glenn Beck -- although I personally think he's a buffoon, and I'm happy to drop him off the list if you want. An equal number of people would say Sarah Palin, although I personally think she's only semi-sentient, so I'll be happy to drop her off the list, too, if you want.
I've been not including Jess Door (whose views I respect and largely agree with), because I have no knowledge that she's calling the shots here. But by the same token, of course, I'll leave out my insane co-workers, and my cousin, and so on and so forth.
So give me a name here. Give me some people who are "true" Tea Party members in the public spotlight. If Beck, Palin, and Sharon "The Hit Woman" Angle shouldn't be considered to be speaking for them, who should? Take your time, find some people who think ahead far enough to talk about concrete post-revolutionary plans, instead of spending all their time spewing empty rhetoric like some kind of right-wing Obamas.
If the people you have dealings with are so bad, I suggest you report them to the FBI. Advocating the overthrow of the government is a federal crime.
If the people you have dealings with are so bad, I suggest you report them to the FBI. Advocating the overthrow of the government is a federal crime.
Evidently the Obama Admin disagrees; after all, Beck and Angle are still at large. Or, more likely, it's easy to skirt the line and make plain-as-day innuendoes that can later be denied.
If the people you have dealings with are so bad, I suggest you report them to the FBI. Advocating the overthrow of the government is a federal crime.Evidently the Obama Admin disagrees; after all, Beck and Angle are still at large. Or, more likely, it's easy to skirt the line and make plain-as-day innuendoes that can later be denied.
Or maybe they are not saying what you think they are saying. Maybe you are getting a skewed view from the news sources you frequent.
Or maybe they are not saying what you think they are saying. Maybe you are getting a skewed view from the news sources you frequent.
That would be equal parts Fox News, Reuters, and the NY Times, which between the three of them largely cover the range from far right to largely indifferent to ultraleft -- and from TV to written media. Sometimes I get Walton & Johnson ("Obama is the Antichrist!") on the radio, too -- they make all the others seem totally sane. I agree that anyone frequenting only news that slants one way or the other is definitely receiving a totally one-sided view of the situation. I'll also freely admit that, watching Beck on Fox, I have to concentrate extra-hard to actually listen to what he's saying, because his constant blubbering, crying, and other assorted buffoonery makes it hard to pay attention to the rest of it. Then again, I can't force myself at all to watch any of the horrid liberal TV "news" shows (except Colbert of course, who's hilarious).
Don't make me start quoting Founding Fathers up in this mug...
What, TJ, about needing a revolution every 20 years or so? Yeah, I can quote them, too. You'll notice, though, when the first one rolled around, he knew enough to have a new government in place BEFORE we threw out the old one -- although his unabashed support for the French revolution showed that his idealism could often get the better of him.
And anyway, if we're going to properly quote Jefferson, we'll need to take a pair of scissors to the Bible to do a proper job of it! (On that note, I love how Beck, who's always going on about God, tries to use Thomas Paine as a hero -- conveniently ignoring that man's entire legacy. Samuel Adams would have been a better choice... oh, wait, not for an ex-drunk, I guess.)
I think Bill Maher is pretty funny as well.
Or maybe they are not saying what you think they are saying. Maybe you are getting a skewed view from the news sources you frequent.That would be equal parts Fox News, Reuters, and the NY Times, which between the three of them largely cover the range from far right to largely indifferent to ultraleft -- and from TV to written media. Sometimes I get Walton & Johnson ("Obama is the Antichrist!") on the radio, too -- they make all the others seem totally sane. I agree that anyone frequenting only news that slants one way or the other is definitely receiving a totally one-sided view of the situation. I'll also freely admit that, watching Beck on Fox, I have to concentrate extra-hard to actually listen to what he's saying, because his constant blubbering, crying, and other assorted buffoonery makes it hard to pay attention to the rest of it. Then again, I can't force myself at all to watch any of the horrid liberal TV "news" shows (except Colbert of course, who's hilarious).
I think Bill Maher is pretty funny as well.
Sure, he's amusing, but the guy's a loon. Anti-Vax? Really? Come on, Bill!
I wasn't aware "amusing" meant, annoying, shrill and vicious.
"Sometimes found coincidentally with" =/= "synonymous." And do we need to really go over the fact that no one claims that "amusing" is universal? Hell, some people find Rush Limbaugh and his alter ego Michael Moore to be amusing.
The way Kirth demeans the the Tea Party movement for the actions and words of the majority of those he's heard and/or met isn't fair.With caveats in bold, to reflect what I've actually been saying, but OK, I'm willing to accept that maybe I've been unfair. Here's an easy chance to convince me for sure:
The thing is, it's all too easy to pull a "One True Scotsman" thing here. Who actually does speak for the Tea Party?
That's part of a point of a party, though. There's not necessarily one true voice, but a series of political alliances and cross-support. I think the closest you come to a voice is Palin, but she's more a medium than a message, and it's her being in tune with the ideal that people find so attractive (cf. Obama).
However, if you want to get to what's at that core message, I believe that the Tea Party generally can be summed up in one sentence: we don't like the 14th Amendment.
However, if you want to get to what's at that core message, I believe that the Tea Party generally can be summed up in one sentence: we don't like the 14th Amendment.
Which I always found ironic, given that it's the amendment that, for example, keeps (state) government from taking their guns away.
Article 1 basically says: "You know all those rights the Constitution says the Federal goverment can't take away from you? The states don't get to do it either from now on."
I grew up in Detroit. I know it had problems when I was a kid. I understand why Mom and Dad moved away while I was in junior high. But now...it's even worse.
It's sad to see an American city fallen so far.
Honestly there are many American cities dying