Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 6 of 193 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 16 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 4825

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #126
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    So after reading a lot of things on the election in November, I have come to the conclusion that the Tea Party is going to either make or break the R's. It is now coming out that people are going to try and make the Tea Party look bad on Tax Day by "pretending" to be Tea Partiers and shouting racial slurs and other lewd remarks. This is being done to try and ruin the image of the Tea Party.
    .
    I saw them talking about that on fox news (yeah I watch it sometimes, kind of like self-torture or something). I suspect its some joke or something that fox news created to give them an explanation for the dumb things the tea partiers do. Seriously, they don't need any help making themselves look bad.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  2. #127
    Cyburbian biscuit's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Paris of Appalachia
    Posts
    3,902
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I saw them talking about that on fox news (yeah I watch it sometimes, kind of like self-torture or something). I suspect its some joke or something that fox news created to give them an explanation for the dumb things the tea partiers do. Seriously, they don't need any help making themselves look bad.
    Exacatly. If the Tea Partiers were honest about being Republicans then they could just blame those signs on an overzealous staffer.

    I've attended a couple of their rallies, and even have a couple of relatives (by blood and marriage) who have associated themselves with this astro-turfed movement. The detachment from reality, the paranoia, and even the implicite racism are real. This is an angry bunch who for some reason was fine with out-of-control government spending, wars, loss of "freedoms," etc... prior to January 20, 2009. Now if they aren't outright agressive in their tone, they are very concerned and afraid for our nation. Where was this fear and concern for, I don't know, the past eight to 30 years?

    I have an uncle by marriage who has cut ties with my wife and me because we can't be convinced of how wrong our politics are. Ideology uber alles!
    Last edited by biscuit; 13 Apr 2010 at 12:58 PM.

  3. #128
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,678
    The Oklahoma Teabaggers have a great idea, start a state sponsored militia! That will show those feds whose rights they are trampling on. Because, the National Guard is a questionable organization when it comes to political loyalties and only good for national disasters.

    Yup, it is probably legal.

    Please tell me how a vote in OK will be fair and open when you have armed Tali.... I mean Teabaggers, in front of polling places "persuading" you to vote the way they want you to or else.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-washington-/1
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  4. #129
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    The Oklahoma Teabaggers have a great idea, start a state sponsored militia! That will show those feds whose rights they are trampling on. Because, the National Guard is a questionable organization when it comes to political loyalties and only good for national disasters.

    Yup, it is probably legal.

    Please tell me how a vote in OK will be fair and open when you have armed Tali.... I mean Teabaggers, in front of polling places "persuading" you to vote the way they want you to or else.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-washington-/1
    Duke, nowhere in that article does it state that militia members will be in front of polling places trying to influence elections. And comparing it to the Taliban is outright malicious, which is fine, but it's still ungrounded. Some might argue it's just as bad as the slogans the Tea Party have allegedly been shouting at Democratic Congressmen. Also, the National Guard doesn't have "questionable organization when it comes to political loyalties" - it is under the organization of state governments, but at any time National Guard units may have their authority transferred to the President. Their loyalties lie with the President of the United States. Again, this is fine, but it won't do any good according to the Tea Party's goal of having a safeguard against political intrusion they deem unconstitutional. I'm not asking you to agree with it. But it is what it is, and you should at least acknowledge their reasoning and that it makes sense in the context of their political ideology.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

    Quote Originally posted by biscuit View post
    Exacatly. If the Tea Partiers were honest about being Republicans then they could just blame those signs on an overzealous staffer.

    I've attended a couple of their rallies, and even have a couple of relatives (by blood and marriage) who have associated themselves with this astro-turfed movement. The detachment from reality, the paranoia, and even the implicite racism are real. This is an angry bunch who for some reason was fine with out-of-control government spending, wars, loss of "freedoms," etc... prior to January 20, 2009. Now if they aren't outright agressive in their tone, they are very concerned and afraid for our nation. Where was this fear and concern for, I don't know, the past eight to 30 years?

    I have an uncle by marriage who has cut ties with my wife and me because we can't be convinced of how wrong our politics are. Ideology uber alles!
    Who said they were fine with out-of-control government spending for the last 8-30 years? Most of these people haven't been okay with government spending since Johnson or FDR, let alone Reagan. According to their political ideologies, their relative silence has been due to the supposed unconstitutional nature of the present policies being enacted in Washington. Many of them hold similar views about elements of the New Deal and Great Society, but the present policies are merely tipping the scale, even if they aren't near as bold as the New Deal and Great Society, to alarmism.

    I'm not saying you should agree with it. I'm not saying I agree with it. But I am asking you to understand it. And before you start talking about the pitfalls of ideologues, you should also understand that every political position, especially from people passionate about them, has underlying ideological backing, including yours, as evidenced by your use of the terms "astro-turfed" and "paranoia", and your implications of racism and use of wars as backing for how this movement is insincere in its motives. They reflect your political ideology, because political ideologies affect both the views themselves and how the views are reasoned, and it affects everybody with opinions. There is no "neutrality" or "objectivity" in politics unless you're apathetic, but even then your personal bias impacts your apathy.

  5. #130
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post

    Who said they were fine with out-of-control government spending for the last 8-30 years? .
    They didn't, but lets put this in context. Prior to Obama being elected they were quiet. If they weren't okay with out of control spending for the last 8 to 30 years, why did they all of a sudden morph into this extremely vocal, gun-toting, anti-government group? The heros of the tea-party (Limbaugh, Hannity) were busy defending the policies of the republican president when he was racking up the largest debt ever, and these people showed no concern for it. The rowdy tea parties started about a month or two after the election of our first black president, before he had much of an opportunity to pursue any policies whatsoever. What's the deal?
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  6. #131
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    19,374
    Armed political cadres going around intimidating voters? Sounds like something that goes on in the Congo or Ethiopia. That could never happen here.

  7. #132
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,112
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    The heros of the tea-party (Limbaugh, Hannity) were busy defending the policies of the republican president when he was racking up the largest debt ever, and these people showed no concern for it.
    To me that is the real issue here. Are these people really worried more now than they were 4 years ago... the answer is YES. Only because Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are saying it. I think that if we take 10 tea party members we will see that there is 1 well informed Tea Party member, there are 7 that are extremely uninformed, and 2 that are extremist (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.). They are only feeling what they are being told to feel. Obama could cut taxes, go to war with Iran, and drill in ANWAR and very little would change in their minds, I believe. This isn't a movement, it is a protest group. Instead of protesting policy, they are protesting the President.


    I agree with TexasOkie that the Tea Parties have a right to create these militias, I think that if you don't believe that it is for an a reason that no longer has much relevance, you are being crazy. Uprising against the Federal government is not only silly, but extremely dangerous. It is this reason that you only hear about people trying to upraise or create a militia ending up either A.) Dead or B.) Trying to kill someone.

    I see no true reason to create a militia in this day and age. Sure our constitution allows it. To me this is just another part of the constitution that has no relevance to today. Just like most of the document.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  8. #133
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,712
    The Tea Party movement keeps attracting every nutwit and crazy that's crawling around in the slime, including this embarrassment to Buffalo and WNY ...
    Carl 'The Racist Beast Porn' Paladino.

    The really sad thing is that many of the Tea Partyers continue to support this dirt-bag who is well known in Buffalo as a major slumlord who bought downtown buildings for pennies on the dollar and let them decay for decades -- and then got "Friday afternoon demo" permits from his buddy Mayor Tony Masiello so that the buildings were gone before anyone from the preservation groups even knew what was up.

    One of his most notable victims was the historic Harbor Inn in the old First Ward. He outbid buyers who wanted to reopen the old bar (which dated back to Erie Canal days IIRC) because he knew that his bud the mayor wanted to move the Buffalo Zoo down to the waterfront (it was inside info of course). Well, the Zoo didn't move, and when Carl got tired of paying taxes, he got a Friday afternoon demo permit. That was all she wrote for the Harbor Inn.

  9. #134
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    They didn't, but lets put this in context. Prior to Obama being elected they were quiet. If they weren't okay with out of control spending for the last 8 to 30 years, why did they all of a sudden morph into this extremely vocal, gun-toting, anti-government group? The heros of the tea-party (Limbaugh, Hannity) were busy defending the policies of the republican president when he was racking up the largest debt ever, and these people showed no concern for it. The rowdy tea parties started about a month or two after the election of our first black president, before he had much of an opportunity to pursue any policies whatsoever. What's the deal?
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    According to their political ideologies, their relative silence has been due to the supposed unconstitutional nature of the present policies being enacted in Washington. Many of them hold similar views about elements of the New Deal and Great Society, but the present policies are merely tipping the scale, even if they aren't near as bold as the New Deal and Great Society, to alarmism.
    ^^ plus a disappointing election bringing out more raw emotion. The sentiment's been there for a while. The current proposals, in the eyes of the Tea Party movement, tip the scales and are unconstitutional, whereas the Bush years were just poor fiscal policy (and yes, you can find loads of sentiment in the backlogs of The National Review, Heritage Foundation publishings, etc., sounding alarms at the growing debt and fiscal mismanagement of the Bush administration). It wasn't the main party message at the time because Bush was, at the time, the leader of the party, and as you all are starting to realize with some of the Obama disappointments, you can't get everything and a lot of effort has to be expanded to protect what policies and actions the president does decide to pursue or you risk losing elections. And even then, as indicated in the last two election cycles, it will eventually come back to bite you anyway. Is it perfect? Hell no. It sucks. But it's the sad truth.

  10. #135
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,678
    TexanOkie A militia is a paramilitary force capable of offensive and defensive maneuvers intended to seize, occupy, or otherwise obtain objectives through force and subterfuge. It exists for no other reason.

    Any such organization has power and is ALWAYS political. Even in the US armed forces, from the very beginning of our nation. The Russians have always understood this. The future Teabag Militia understands this.

    [QUOTE=TexanOkie;537598]Duke, nowhere in that article does it state that militia members will be in front of polling places trying to influence elections. /QUOTE]

    The gentleman from the article was also on Chris Mathews tonight. He clearly states that the possible formation of the TeaBag Militia was for political application of their views. He states the same thing in his article. Applying that force to the ballot box is the most effective method of influencing state law in order to propagate their political goals and motivation.

    I would bet you a binge drinking session, it won't take more than 18 months for it to happen should the TBM form.

    The TBM (TeaBag Militia) is for political uses. Since the Oklahoma National Guard takes care of disaster related issues, the various law enforcement takes care of policing issues, and the militias are not trained for major Natural disasters like hazmat related issues or forest fires. As such, they become "Political Commissars" dedicated to enforcing political views by use of force.

    If they are not for the application of violence versus the federal government, what would their real purpose be? When "liberals" feel endangered by the TBM, what happens when they factionalize? I know. You know as well. It would be nieve to believe that armed factions "In a well regulated malitia" living in fear of each other will eventually fight with those arms. Think Ireland.

    You my friend (I do seriously mean that), have way to much faith in human nature than I do, to believe this could end well.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    And comparing it to the Taliban is outright malicious, which is fine, but it's still ungrounded.
    The TBM is way right of the Attila the Hun. Spitting on lawmakers, shouting racial epithets, the religious overtones, and the insistence on rolling back any changes in the Constitution argue for an irrational return to some set of laws and social organization reminiscent of Taliban rule.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Some might argue it's just as bad as the slogans the Tea Party have allegedly been shouting at Democratic Congressmen.
    I believe that TeaBaggers are social reactionaries that would disenfranchise many in our society by operating under a strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution, repudiating the body of law established by the US Supreme Court, and militarizing as a faction to terrorize any other group that stands in opposition to their views. They have stated these objectives for a fact.

    This means they would remove rights from their fellow citizens and remove protections we have decided as a nation to provide society wide. Conceptually, they are becoming a lot like the opposition in Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Also, the National Guard doesn't have "questionable organization when it comes to political loyalties" - it is under the organization of state governments, but at any time National Guard units may have their authority transferred to the President. Their loyalties lie with the President of the United States.
    Let me clarify. The National Guard is a "Well regulated militia" created from the ranks of citizens from the good state of Oklahoma. Each guard unit is a "fill out" unit trained in combat maneuvers. In essence, each National Guard brigade is 1/3 of a maneuver division held in reserve. In no case has a state been striped of so many guard units it had no ability to manage disasters or provide for its common defense (a couple states were tight in the last 8 years but not unmanageably so).

    This is Oklahoma's militia problem. The Guard is operationally integrated into the US armed forces. This means that TeaBaggers are not allowed to be TBM members and part of the Guard. That is law. Therefore, the Guard at best is an armed faction of Oklahoman's who can not be trusted to fight against federal interests precisely because their loyalties lay with the President of the United States. At worst, the Guard is a strong faction capable of being used against the TBM because their loyalties lay with the President of the United States.

    The Oklahoma TBM can not trust the Guard because it is a separate faction aligned with its stated enemy. The Oklahoma TBM has not identified any other danger or threat other than the US federal government.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Again, this is fine, but it won't do any good according to the Tea Party's goal of having a safeguard against political intrusion they deem unconstitutional.
    Short of violence, how can the TBM safeguard against political intrusion they deem unconstitutional? It's nonsense.

    The TBM could sue all the way up to the Supreme Court. The State of Oklahoma already has this ability. Duplication of resources would cost citizens of Oklahoma extra money. NONSENSE.

    Just for instance say, the court decision goes against them? How do they defend against it without violence if they disagree with the ruling? If they accept the decision, which they have no choice in doing so in any event, there is no reason to have the TBM. If not, violence will occur. This violence is an act of succession. It would and should be crushed and leaders would be tried and convicted of treason. So what is the point of the TBM? There is no action that makes sense as an isolated faction in opposition short of the ballet box. So what sense does a TBM make? NONSENSE.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I'm not asking you to agree with it. But it is what it is, and you should at least acknowledge their reasoning and that it makes sense in the context of their political ideology.
    I agree they have the right to form a state militia outside the boundaries of the existing US armed forces and National Guard. I do not have to agree it makes sense in the context of their political ideology. It only makes sense if they are intending to become coercive political commissars to influence policy in the state by some sort of force such as guns near polling places (for starters).

    Their ideology is not coherent nor logical. They have romanticized the past and want to institute social policies that are no longer possible. The rejection of a large portions of judicial work shows they have no understanding of how a legal system operates and that it prevents armed violence between factions.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    That is not the problem. I can entertain the thought of the OTBM and their ideology. Did that. Why can't you seem to see where it will lead?

    You are seriously advocating for state militias?
    You don't seem to see the formation of opposition (2 or more) militias within that state?
    Will the state legally be forced to sanction both or more militias?
    Will the state require "Open meetings laws" ?
    Will federal agents be allowed to observe and report on these factions?
    What happens if federal agents feel sedition is taking place?
    Will these militias allowed to be openly armed?
    When violence breaks out between sanctioned factions, how does the state adjudicate between them fairly? Can they?
    Will the state continue their funding for the Guard?
    Does the federal government have the right to impose sanctions and a blockade on travel, trade, and access to Oklahoma in a dispute.
    Will state officials be criminally liable for decisions made during a "protection from federal over reach" event?

    So now you get the idea I have thought about this. It ends badly and goes to a place we should not be heading to. TeaBaggers participated in societies largess in equal proportions to any other cross section of the population. Now they want to get out of the consequences and screw everyone else.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  11. #136
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    TexanOkie A militia is a paramilitary force capable of offensive and defensive maneuvers intended to seize, occupy, or otherwise obtain objectives through force and subterfuge. It exists for no other reason.

    Any such organization has power and is ALWAYS political. Even in the US armed forces, from the very beginning of our nation. The Russians have always understood this. The future Teabag Militia understands this.

    Quote Originally posted by [QUOTE=TexanOkie View post
    Duke, nowhere in that article does it state that militia members will be in front of polling places trying to influence elections.
    The gentleman from the article was also on Chris Mathews tonight. He clearly states that the possible formation of the TeaBag Militia was for political application of their views. He states the same thing in his article. Applying that force to the ballot box is the most effective method of influencing state law in order to propagate their political goals and motivation.

    I would bet you a binge drinking session, it won't take more than 18 months for it to happen should the TBM form.

    The TBM (TeaBag Militia) is for political uses. Since the Oklahoma National Guard takes care of disaster related issues, the various law enforcement takes care of policing issues, and the militias are not trained for major Natural disasters like hazmat related issues or forest fires. As such, they become "Political Commissars" dedicated to enforcing political views by use of force.

    If they are not for the application of violence versus the federal government, what would their real purpose be? When "liberals" feel endangered by the TBM, what happens when they factionalize? I know. You know as well. It would be nieve to believe that armed factions "In a well regulated malitia" living in fear of each other will eventually fight with those arms. Think Ireland.

    You my friend (I do seriously mean that), have way to much faith in human nature than I do, to believe this could end well.



    The TBM is way right of the Attila the Hun. Spitting on lawmakers, shouting racial epithets, the religious overtones, and the insistence on rolling back any changes in the Constitution argue for an irrational return to some set of laws and social organization reminiscent of Taliban rule.



    I believe that TeaBaggers are social reactionaries that would disenfranchise many in our society by operating under a strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution, repudiating the body of law established by the US Supreme Court, and militarizing as a faction to terrorize any other group that stands in opposition to their views. They have stated these objectives for a fact.

    This means they would remove rights from their fellow citizens and remove protections we have decided as a nation to provide society wide. Conceptually, they are becoming a lot like the opposition in Afghanistan.



    Let me clarify. The National Guard is a "Well regulated militia" created from the ranks of citizens from the good state of Oklahoma. Each guard unit is a "fill out" unit trained in combat maneuvers. In essence, each National Guard brigade is 1/3 of a maneuver division held in reserve. In no case has a state been striped of so many guard units it had no ability to manage disasters or provide for its common defense (a couple states were tight in the last 8 years but not unmanageably so).

    This is Oklahoma's militia problem. The Guard is operationally integrated into the US armed forces. This means that TeaBaggers are not allowed to be TBM members and part of the Guard. That is law. Therefore, the Guard at best is an armed faction of Oklahoman's who can not be trusted to fight against federal interests precisely because their loyalties lay with the President of the United States. At worst, the Guard is a strong faction capable of being used against the TBM because their loyalties lay with the President of the United States.

    The Oklahoma TBM can not trust the Guard because it is a separate faction aligned with its stated enemy. The Oklahoma TBM has not identified any other danger or threat other than the US federal government.



    Short of violence, how can the TBM safeguard against political intrusion they deem unconstitutional? It's nonsense.

    The TBM could sue all the way up to the Supreme Court. The State of Oklahoma already has this ability. Duplication of resources would cost citizens of Oklahoma extra money. NONSENSE.

    Just for instance say, the court decision goes against them? How do they defend against it without violence if they disagree with the ruling? If they accept the decision, which they have no choice in doing so in any event, there is no reason to have the TBM. If not, violence will occur. This violence is an act of succession. It would and should be crushed and leaders would be tried and convicted of treason. So what is the point of the TBM? There is no action that makes sense as an isolated faction in opposition short of the ballet box. So what sense does a TBM make? NONSENSE.



    I agree they have the right to form a state militia outside the boundaries of the existing US armed forces and National Guard. I do not have to agree it makes sense in the context of their political ideology. It only makes sense if they are intending to become coercive political commissars to influence policy in the state by some sort of force such as guns near polling places (for starters).

    Their ideology is not coherent nor logical. They have romanticized the past and want to institute social policies that are no longer possible. The rejection of a large portions of judicial work shows they have no understanding of how a legal system operates and that it prevents armed violence between factions.



    That is not the problem. I can entertain the thought of the OTBM and their ideology. Did that. Why can't you seem to see where it will lead?

    You are seriously advocating for state militias?
    You don't seem to see the formation of opposition (2 or more) militias within that state?
    Will the state legally be forced to sanction both or more militias?
    Will the state require "Open meetings laws" ?
    Will federal agents be allowed to observe and report on these factions?
    What happens if federal agents feel sedition is taking place?
    Will these militias allowed to be openly armed?
    When violence breaks out between sanctioned factions, how does the state adjudicate between them fairly? Can they?
    Will the state continue their funding for the Guard?
    Does the federal government have the right to impose sanctions and a blockade on travel, trade, and access to Oklahoma in a dispute.
    Will state officials be criminally liable for decisions made during a "protection from federal over reach" event?

    So now you get the idea I have thought about this. It ends badly and goes to a place we should not be heading to. TeaBaggers participated in societies largess in equal proportions to any other cross section of the population. Now they want to get out of the consequences and screw everyone else.
    I knew all this, and I see where it could potentially lead. The threat of use of force to reject infringements on unconstitutional federal actions is why this militia, with loyalties to the state only, would be formed. There are a hell of a lot of people, and an overwhelming majority in over half of the states, who believe a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is the correct interpretation, just as much as you believe a loose, living interpretation is necessary to adapt to changing social needs. But, to the Tea Party's (not "tea baggers") credit, the strict constructionist Constitutional views do not prohibit any of these things they view as unconstitutional from being enacted through the properly delineated venue in the federalist system that the Constitution clearly outlines through things like specific enumerated powers and the verbatim language of the 10th Amendment. And no, this is not some dead "state's rights" slogan - it's a matter of purview. No one's arguing against civil rights (I know many will disagree with that assessment, but it's true despite whatever well-intentioned-yet-misguided biased reasoning you might have) and other laws that have been passed which further the aims of classical liberalism enshrined in our foundational documents. They're not even arguing against adopting new laws that further these aims. They're arguing that the federal government is encroaching into state's jurisdictions, not only going so far beyond the aims as to usurp jurisdiction, but also going so far as to create dependency rather than the individual liberty the federal government, by specific language, was created to protect. And if said federal government will not be representative or respondent of its members in an appropriate federalist context, then states can and will threaten use of force to maintain the integrity of the Constitution and the government it created.

    Disclaimer: I am not saying I believe the present situation merits this (yet); I am merely saying that I it is a legitimate course of action, intentions and goals should the situation ever actually warrant it.

  12. #137
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,112
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post

    Disclaimer: I am not saying I believe the present situation merits this (yet); I am merely saying that I it is a legitimate course of action, intentions and goals should the situation ever actually warrant it.
    I respect your opinion, but do not understand how you can justify in your mind where this is going. I will admit that my purview is from a position that doesn't exist in today's political spectrum, but I do not believe that creating militias and sticking to the ol' constitution will make this world better.

    I see nothing positive from the Tea Party protest. The fact that they named themselves the Tea Party even gets me annoyed. It just shows their ignorance of history. If the Tea Party wanted to become a national party - stating their beliefs, following the laws set up by our government, and playing the game we call politics - so be it. But to try and be "grassroots" and not wanting to be a party so they don't fraction the republican's seems extremely weak to me. Either you believe in what you believe in, or you don't. This is not the christian coalition. This is a much different beast. These are mostly angry, uneducated people, who are "fighting" against injustices that have been going on for 30 years. Did healthcare really put this over the top? Where was this grassroots band of brothers when the prescription drug change happened a couple years ago? If this was about entitlements then why are they not calling for the end of social security as well?

    I have no respect for what the Tea Party is doing. They are creating a political environment that has gone from civil discourse, in which you agree, disagree, and compromise, to this faceless, nameless, screaming match, where facts, truth, and civility are all thrown about the window for their agenda.

    I think that if militias actually are created (I really don't think any state is that stupid to allow it to happen), I think it will make for a quick end to this "movement".
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  13. #138
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    There are a hell of a lot of people, and an overwhelming majority in over half of the states, who believe a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is the correct interpretation, just as much as you believe a loose, living interpretation is necessary to adapt to changing social needs.
    I'd be curious to see where these numbers come from, and if the polling to gain these numbers actually explains what "strict constructionist interpretation" means in a way that would make the polling data even remotely reliable.

    In other words, it's very easy to be for something as vague as a "strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution" without the context of knowing what that implies that you're against. Without some questions to verify whether people believe what they say (or some other method of determining that), the polls would be as worthless as polls asking if people want a balanced budget or lower taxes or more services or whatever, without presenting what the consequences of any of those actions would be.
    Last edited by CJC; 14 Apr 2010 at 11:46 AM.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  14. #139
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,192
    Since this thread is rapidly descending into nothing more than a continual and deepening leftist hatefest, I've decided to withdraw from it.

    As Gandhi once said (and I might be paraphrasing a bit here): "First they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight us, and then we win".

    One response before I close out my participation in this thread - Ima, over the years, I have developed a VERY HEALTHY level of skepticism of things that others say, developers, business leaders, politicians, but especially from government bureaucrats who are driven by a political agenda. I 'run the numbers' and look for logical future progressions - and if things don't add up, I'll say so. In the case of the Massachusetts *NON-PROFIT* health insurers and their requested rate increase, the insurers sound much more credible to me than the state's agenda-driven bureaucrats.

    That is why I have NEVER been on board with ANY of the great 'bandwagon' causes, too, especially the 'coming ice age/global warming/climate change' one and the Chicken Littles who are pushing it (and if you will notice, the lines that they tout are ALWAYS changing, like the climate does naturally).

    Finis to The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread.

    Mike

  15. #140
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,112
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this thread is rapidly descending into nothing more than a continual and deepening leftist hatefest, I've decided to withdraw from it.

    I disagree. I think we are discussing what the Tea Party is. I am told that they are not the Republican party, so to me it isn't about left or right. It is about whether what they are doing is within their rights, or whether it is a poor choice. Although I disagree with you many times, I am sad to see your political viewpoint lost from this thread.

    I think that this thread is a much better outlet than allowing millions of political threads be opened about topics. I also believe that generally it has been a pretty civil discourse. Not sure what topic you felt was a "hatefest"...
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  16. #141
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this thread is rapidly descending into nothing more than a continual and deepening leftist hatefest, I've decided to withdraw from it.
    That's too bad you see it that way. Clearly the lefties are the majority on this board but I don't see it as any sort of "hatefest"


    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Ima, over the years, I have developed a VERY HEALTHY level of skepticism of things that others say, developers, business leaders, politicians, but especially from government bureaucrats who are driven by a political agenda. I 'run the numbers' and look for logical future progressions - and if things don't add up, I'll say so. In the case of the Massachusetts *NON-PROFIT* health insurers and their requested rate increase, the insurers sound much more credible to me than the state's agenda-driven bureaucrats.
    I don't know if you are going to read this or not. But I generally agree with you that everyone should have a healthy skepticism of all interests. I just think that the agenda of bureaucrats is often more in line with the public interest than is the agenda of businesses. I didn't realize that the requested rate increase came from non-profit health insurers. I thought it was mainly from for-profit insurers. If it was really non-profits than that is quite interesting indeed.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  17. #142
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I think that if militias actually are created (I really don't think any state is that stupid to allow it to happen), I think it will make for a quick end to this "movement".
    Some states already have militias that are under state authority only which could fulfill such a role (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces). Texas is one such example, with the Texas State Guard, which augments the Texas National Guard when necessary, but also assists local authorities, provides search and rescue services, and has monitored the state border (with Mexico) since World War I.

    http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/

  18. #143
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I don't know if you are going to read this or not. But I generally agree with you that everyone should have a healthy skepticism of all interests. I just think that the agenda of bureaucrats is often more in line with the public interest than is the agenda of businesses. I didn't realize that the requested rate increase came from non-profit health insurers. I thought it was mainly from for-profit insurers. If it was really non-profits than that is quite interesting indeed.
    I don't really see it as any different. Non-profit insurers have interests (and "agendas") just as any other entity does (government agency, individual, corporation, etc). Without some impartial third party reviewing the numbers, I don't put any more faith in what Blue Cross says over what Aetna says.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  19. #144
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,112
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Some states already have militias that are under state authority only which could fulfill such a role (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces). Texas is one such example, with the Texas State Guard, which augments the Texas National Guard when necessary, but also assists local authorities, provides search and rescue services, and has monitored the state border (with Mexico) since World War I.

    http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/
    I understand that these are considered militias, but these serve a purpose. They are federally guided, and they only serve when needed. These are not militias created to protect the state of Texas against some imaginary foe. They are used as an auxiliary National Guard. What the Tea Party is looking to create is nothing like these forces...
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  20. #145
    The Tea Baggers don't need any militias, we are not a 3rd world country with armed militas running around. I have been following the coffee party in my home town. I have not attended an event yet. Well how about it if we have a coffee party milita to protect us from those "crazy" tea bagger mililtia, and then we can have a local milita to protect us from both of those militias.

    If the Tea Baggers are serious, then do it the regular,old fashioned way, elect politicans that will represent their interest. They need to field some politicans that represent their point of view, fund them and get them elected. Right now they seem to have been captured by a tiny minority of nut cases.

    There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism, and in many cases all governments no matter what level, need some fiscal restraints. The Tea Baggers want fiscal conservatism, but they are going about it in the wrong way.

  21. #146
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by chrisinmd View post
    If the Tea Baggers are serious, then do it the regular,old fashioned way, elect politicans that will represent their interest. They need to field some politicans that represent their point of view, fund them and get them elected.
    That's just it - they have been doing just that. It's just that their elected politicians are being drowned out by other people's elected politicians in Washington DC, and Washington DC is usurping the authority of the Tea Party-ers' (not "tea baggers") state and local elected politicians who, under the auspices of our federalist system, should be able to assume responsibility for things not covered in the Constitution by/for the federal government.

    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I understand that these are considered militias, but these serve a purpose. They are federally guided, and they only serve when needed. These are not militias created to protect the state of Texas against some imaginary foe. They are used as an auxiliary National Guard. What the Tea Party is looking to create is nothing like these forces...
    Actually, the Texas State Guard is a different organization than the two branches of the the Texas National Guard. It is not under the authority of the federal government in any way, nor are they guided by the federal government. They are under the sole authority and guided by the state of Texas and the governor of Texas, who is the organization's commander-in-chief. The Governer uses the State Guard as an auxiliary for the Texas National Guard when the National Guard is called up into Federal service, but it has ties all the way back to the Stephen F. Austin's colonial militia which fought (and won) the Texas War for Independence, the Indian Wars during the Republic of Texas years, etc. Like I mentioned earlier, they've already been used to patrol the state border (I'm talking recently here, too - Operation Border Star, a pet project of Rick Perry's administration, has had 5 different incarnations since he first assumed office; and Operation Wrangler, which basically has usurped federal border control activities across portions of south Texas, enforcing both federal and state laws that the USCPB would not enforce). Conceivably, the organization could be used for the purposes mentioned.
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 14 Apr 2010 at 4:22 PM. Reason: double reply

  22. #147
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    That's just it - they have been doing just that. It's just that their elected politicians are being drowned out by other people's elected politicians in Washington DC, and Washington DC is usurping the authority of the Tea Party-ers' (not "tea baggers") state and local elected politicians who, under the auspices of our federalist system, should be able to assume responsibility for things not covered in the Constitution by/for the federal government.
    Why are they not taking these issues to court? Isn't that where this should be settled? If there are indeed blatant constitutionality problems with some of the current actions in DC, it should be pretty easy to fast track something to at least one of the district courts, and possibly further up the chain than that. I've seen some state attorneys general talking big, but not much action, and I've heard of almost nothing coming from individual groups (which tends to tell me that maybe their case isn't supported by much legal precedent, but rather just by their view of what is and isn't constitutional).
    Last edited by CJC; 14 Apr 2010 at 3:55 PM.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  23. #148
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by CJC View post
    Why are they not taking these issues to court? Isn't that where this should be settled? If there are indeed blatant constitutionality problems with some of the current actions, it should be pretty easy to fast track something to at least one of the district courts, and possibly further up the chain than that. I've seen some state attorneys general talking big, but not much action, and I've heard of almost nothing coming from individual groups (which tends to tell me that maybe their case isn't supported by much legal precedent, but rather just by their view of what is and isn't constitutional).
    It is my understanding that several of these issues are currently in litigation at various levels. Your statements about legal precedent are somewhat correct, but a Tea Party-er is likely to indicate the history of judicial activism in court decisions which have created improper legal precedent. And while Tea Party-ers may be referencing leftist activism, surely those on the left can concede the fact that there has been a long history of judicial activism from both dominant political philosophies in this country.

    Tea Party-ers will also point out a strain of growing statism and corporatism since FDR, which included several Republican administrations, to where by the time of Reagan, the best the conservative faction could hope for was a slowing down of the growth of government, since an entire generation had grown up believing it was inevitable and normal that governments naturally continue to grow. The new strain of Tea Party conservatism rejects this entire premise.

  24. #149
    Cyburbian CJC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It is my understanding that several of these issues are currently in litigation at various levels. Your statements about legal precedent are somewhat correct, but a Tea Party-er is likely to indicate the history of judicial activism in court decisions which have created improper legal precedent. And while Tea Party-ers may be referencing leftist activism, surely those on the left can concede the fact that there has been a long history of judicial activism from both dominant political philosophies in this country.
    Oh, absolutely, "judicial activism" is something that will always be present (on both/any sides of an issue) as long as judges are human (I hear that Apple is working on an iJudge as we speak ).

    I just don't particularly see what their desired outcome (other than to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt) is if they don't feel that they can advance their goals through ANY of the three branches of our government (the three created in our constitution to keep an eye on each other). Are they arguing for revolution? Overthrowing the current government and starting over with the same constitution? If you don't trust the methods created in our constitution to determine if something is constitutional or not, what's the point of the constitution in the first place?

    Tea Party-ers will also point out a strain of growing statism and corporatism since FDR, which included several Republican administrations, to where by the time of Reagan, the best the conservative faction could hope for was a slowing down of the growth of government, since an entire generation had grown up believing it was inevitable and normal that governments naturally continue to grow. The new strain of Tea Party conservatism rejects this entire premise.
    I suppose I can see this. I'm still not completely convinced that this is their primary goal, based on the few "Tea Partiers" that I know, but perhaps I'm only meeting outliers.

    I'm still curious as to what their expected end game is. Win hearts and minds, and then remake things through the legislative and executive branches? Pass new constitutional amendments? Elect enough people to both of those branches to slowly influence the judicial branch and override a century of legal precedent? Some of all? None? Color me confused. With the way that our government is designed, you can't simply overturn 100 years of legal precedent because you think it's wrong, without passing new constitutional amendments or appointing judges that are willing to override precedent. I haven't seen many Tea Partiers interviewed that seem to be focusing on a 30 year plan for change.
    Last edited by CJC; 14 Apr 2010 at 4:50 PM.
    Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but three lefts do.

  25. #150
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Tex- I think you've done a good job of trying to summarize what the tea-partiers believe. I think it will be interesting to see what happens when the balance of power in government shifts again and the republicans are in charge. I suspect they won't be angry anymore but maybe I am wrong.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

+ Reply to thread
Page 6 of 193 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 16 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 9
    Last post: 02 Jul 2015, 12:07 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM