• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.
  • On Thursday night, I did something I probably shouldn't have with the server. I lost about 90 posts and three new users in the process. If you're a new user, please re-register. If you posted yesterday, post twice as much on Friday. Again, I apologize. :(

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,451
Points
25
Interesting editorial from the Detroit Free Press on this very topic.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100402/OPINION05/4020321/1322/Cut-off-anonymous-vitriol
Leonard Pitts is marvelous (and, I suspect, a fan of Mark Twain). We've got highlights:

... For proof, see the message boards of pretty much any paper. Or just wade in the nearest cesspool. The experiences are equivalent.
...
For every person who offers some trenchant observation on the point at hand, there are a dozen who are so far off point they couldn't find their way back with a compass and road map. For every person who brings up some telling fact, there are a dozen whose "facts" are fantasies freshly made up to suit the exigencies of arguments they otherwise cannot win.

Why have message boards failed to live up to the noble expectations? The answer, in a word, is anonymity. The fact that on a message board -- unlike in a letter to the editor -- no one is required to identify themselves, no one is required to "own" what they've said, has inspired many to vent their most reptilian thoughts.
...
Enough. Make them leave their names. Stop giving people a way to throw rocks and hide their hands. Any drop-off in the quantity of message board postings will surely be made up in the quality thereof.

That's my opinion. If you don't like it, well, at least you know whom to blame.
 

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,202
Points
26
Another potential name for 2012?

Besides the potential of such people as USHouse Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1) and former Alaska state governor Sarah Palin going up against BHO in 2012, howabout USArmy General David Petraeus? How would he do? Any thoughts and comments?

Mike
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,689
Points
19
I think he could do well, but unless he plans to retire within the next few months, I don't see it for 2012. Campaigning against your superior officer would seem to be something that four star generals wouldn't do.

I could see a 2016 or 2020 run, and I'd certainly consider him no matter which party he went with. He's definitely a social moderate, so he might not be welcome in the Republican Party of today, but maybe by then.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
I think he would fair well, if he kept his current social moderation and fiscal conservative roots. If he starts moving towards christian conservatism, or anything that doesn't moderate the fact that he is a war general, he won't have a chance.

Although people love generals when it comes election time, I don't think 2012 will see a staunchly conservative win, let alone a staunchly conservative war general.
 

Whose Yur Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
10,129
Points
30
I think he would fair well, if he kept his current social moderation and fiscal conservative roots. If he starts moving towards christian conservatism, or anything that doesn't moderate the fact that he is a war general, he won't have a chance.

Although people love generals when it comes election time, I don't think 2012 will see a staunchly conservative win, let alone a staunchly conservative war general.
The R's need to have a Mondale moment. They need to elect a candate that embodies the extremes in their party-in their case a person the tea baggers would support. Let that person face the people in a general election. Either their political ideas would be validated by a win or rejected by a loss. Until that happens, the arch conservatives will not be happy and will continue to snipe and have idealogical purity tests. McCain's problem was he is a moderate and his feeble attempt to woo the proto tea baggers with Sarah Palin failed.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
I would love to see:

PALIN - BACHMAN 2012!

Otherwise known as CLUELESS & NUTS in 2012!
:D





on another note!

Generals actually don't do real well or real bad in our political system (except for Grant, he sucked BAD!). Mostly they are caretakers and not social firebrands.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
Generals actually don't do real well or real bad in our political system (except for Grant, he sucked BAD!). Mostly they are caretakers and not social firebrands.
They do do one thing relatively well, though: they seem to do well at maintaining stability through their actions and rhetoric. Well, not including Grant, as you already mentioned. Even Andrew Jackson, though strong-minded, managed to keep things together through a couple crises (including the original Nullification affair, which hopefully we won't repeat).
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
They do do one thing relatively well, though: they seem to do well at maintaining stability through their actions and rhetoric. Well, not including Grant, as you already mentioned. Even Andrew Jackson, though strong-minded, managed to keep things together through a couple crises (including the original Nullification affair, which hopefully we won't repeat).
I agree and that is what I was getting at. In this instance though, I would ask what kind of stability we are talking about. Considering most generals by nature, are actually conservative in thought and deed, is the stability being discussed a wished for holding pattern in some kind of vain hope that societies evolution into something else can be prevented.

I don't see where a caretaker president does anything but prolong our national discord. Doing nothing when specific issues need to be addressed makes problems worse.

As far as national crises goes, every single president to date has ordered men into armed conflict in some way shape or form. Armed conflict ordered by the national leader by definition is a "National Crises". Both Generals and non-generals elected to the presidency have handled those relatively well (depending on point of view, the Civil War could be an exception).

So what is the stability we are looking for?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
Anyone else enjoy seeing Conservatives put down Fox News? I like it even more that Murdoch tries to defend it...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1514

To me, I think David Frum and other intellectual Conservatives need to fight harder to keep their party from going to the idiots like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. who don't care about the party, just making some money.

With all the trouble Michael Steele caused, you would think that the GOP would start doing some damage control or begin to start forcing people to be accountable. I like the the R's are starting to get reasonable though... once they get rid of Fox News type people and the talking heads, their party will attract more people. They have 7 months to figure out how to do that.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
I want to know where all the people screaming about self regulating business have gone in the last year and how we don't need regulations to keep people safe?


If you issue orders to specifically skimp and bean count about safety in the mine you own and are the CEO, shouldn't you face the death penalty or life in prison for premeditated murder in the event of worker deaths (ie "The Chinese Method")?
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,671
Points
26
I want to know where all the people screaming about self regulating business have gone in the last year and how we don't need regulations to keep people safe?


If you issue orders to specifically skimp and bean count about safety in the mine you own and are the CEO, shouldn't you face the death penalty or life in prison for premeditated murder in the event of worker deaths (ie "The Chinese Method")?
Oh they are still out there. Screaming just as loud on other boards.

I think that guy is going to go to prison. I sure hope so. But the right is already out there claiming it's the government's fault for not regulating properly- and that that just shows that the government should get out of the regulation business because they are so ineffective at it.
 

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,202
Points
26
Healthcare meltdown in Massachusetts

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/10/no_end_yet_to_insurance_standoff/

A few days ago, several insurance companies in MA (remember, they already have the model for Obamacare™ in full operation) were turned down by state regulators for a fairly sizable rate increase that they said was needed to prevent them from going insolvent (you know, bankrupt, as in 'run out of money') and in response, they stopped writing new policies. The state regulators then ordered them to start issuing policies using last year's rates, which they are refusing to do (would YOU want your business to operate at an enforced loss?). The standoff continues.

Unfortunately, THIS is what we *ALL* can happily look forward to as this snake oil begins its spread nationwide.

:-@:-@:-@:-@:-@

Mike
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,689
Points
19
^We can look forward to the current insurance companies going bankrupt and being forced to reorganize in bankruptcy court (with court-approved wage scales, etc) or moving aside and letting other companies fill the void? I certainly hope that's the case, but I highly doubt it. Any good poker player knows how to bluff...
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,671
Points
26
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/10/no_end_yet_to_insurance_standoff/

A few days ago, several insurance companies in MA (remember, they already have the model for Obamacare™ in full operation) were turned down by state regulators for a fairly sizable rate increase that they said was needed to prevent them from going insolvent (you know, bankrupt, as in 'run out of money') and in response, they stopped writing new policies. The state regulators then ordered them to start issuing policies using last year's rates, which they are refusing to do (would YOU want your business to operate at an enforced loss?). The standoff continues.

Unfortunately, THIS is what we *ALL* can happily look forward to as this snake oil begins its spread nationwide.

:-@:-@:-@:-@:-@

Mike
Where are the numbers indicating that they would be operating at a loss using last years rates?

Serious question here Mike. Do you believe everything that private business says is true and everything the government says is a lie?
 

fringe

Cyburbian
Messages
622
Points
16
Most glaring omission from WVA coalmine disaster stories is the UNION.

Less union activity = less safe and worse working conditions.

No mystery about why Chinese coalmines are the least safe.
 

ofos

Vintage Cyburbian
Messages
8,278
Points
26
Most glaring omission from WVA coalmine disaster stories is the UNION.

Less union activity = less safe and worse working conditions.

No mystery about why Chinese coalmines are the least safe.
I thought communism was the ultimate union. After all, isn't all about the worker?
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
I thought communism was the ultimate union. After all, isn't all about the worker?
You need to do some research other than what some buffoon tells your about unions. Communism is a form of government, not a workers bargaining collective. Nor is it an economic system. Seriously Ofos, I usually respect the things you say even if I don't agree. On this, you sound like you have dropped 35 IQ points to where mgk920 usually starts his silly rants.

The Chinese government will probably execute the owner(s) of the coal mine. They did that to some of the other top executives/ceo's of companies that messed up. Like the milk scandal. This is not unusual over there.

"Two men get the death penalty and an ex-dairy boss gets life for China's tainted milk scandal which left thousands of children ill."

The ceo in the WVA coal mine disaster will likely never see a day in jail, and he directly caused unsafe working conditions leading to the death of 29 people.

So if empirical numbers show that union mines have a better safety record, you are still against the concept of unions and unsafe practices for cheaper energy. You view those 29 people as expendable and not worth the extra 1,000th/kilowatt hour on your monthly bill, for their safety. That is the only logical conclusion from your basic statement.
 

ofos

Vintage Cyburbian
Messages
8,278
Points
26
You need to do some research other than what some buffoon tells your about unions. Communism is a form of government, not a workers bargaining collective. Nor is it an economic system. Seriously Ofos, I usually respect the things you say even if I don't agree. On this, you sound like you have dropped 35 IQ points to where mgk920 usually starts his silly rants.
I knew I should have tossed the sarcasm smilie out there. We really need a "just yanking your chain" smilie. There's more than one reason that I usually don't throw stuff out in the political threads but I don't mind dropping an occasional mortar round just for effect. I''m well aware that communism is not "a workers bargaining collective" but calling it a form of government is a pretty narrow definition of the term. FYI, I've been a union member. While their past efforts were largely positive, especially in the coal mines, most have stagnated and become self-serving institutions.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
25,962
Points
47
You need to do some research other than what some buffoon tells your about unions. Communism is a form of government, not a workers bargaining collective. Nor is it an economic system. Seriously Ofos, I usually respect the things you say even if I don't agree. On this, you sound like you have dropped 35 IQ points to where mgk920 usually starts his silly rants....
[ot]The mod hat's not on yet, but...
Duke, why insist on making political discussions personal/insulting? In my weaker moments I've done it myself, but to be honest it does little to persuade the viewpoints of either the people being insulted or those reading it. Not to mention if it gets carried too far you can/will get carded.[/ot]
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
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 think that the image of the Tea Party to those of us in the middle has never been good. I don't think that these are regular joe's who just happen to be going out to protest. I have always viewed the Tea Party as a poor attempt at Fox News to create a grassroots effort. As the Tea Party gets more crazy, I think that the R's are going to have to make a choice. Scott Brown has. He is already ignoring the Tea Party, even though that is how he got elected. But it is because he understands that the ignorance of many of the protesters will hurt him in the long run.

I see the Tea Party throwing up candidates for a year or two and then disappearing into the night. Or maybe they will become another random third party that has no effect on national elections. I think once people realize how much effort Fox is putting in to prop up the Tea Parties, they will give up hope that they actually stand for anything.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
25,962
Points
47
I suspect the Tea Party appeals to similar demographics as Ross Perot did in 1992. Who knows, maybe they can become a viable 3rd party - but the GOP better hope they don't.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
I suspect the Tea Party appeals to similar demographics as Ross Perot did in 1992. Who knows, maybe they can become a viable 3rd party - but the GOP better hope they don't.
I suspect that is not really the case. I know people who voted for Perot the first time around. In the 10 I can name by close personal association, not a single one of them now finds the Teabaggers remotely palatable as a political party nor do they sympathize with their black helicopter ideology.

Perot was a little different, about like electing Ron Paul or Kucinich to the Presidency. Certainly no weirder than that. At least he could stay on message and did not promote the crazy conspiracy theories Teabaggers promote. Ok, maybe some black helicopter stuff if I remember right. :cool:

Hink Planner said:
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.
If you have a source for this "planning to make them look bad" post it. This is being put out their by people who have just enough control over their paranoia to realize that other nutbags might be making them look bad. It's a denial that race is more of an issue to the fledgling party than anything else it can manage to think about.

Seriously, how many people do you know, would feel good or motivated enough to go out and shout and yell those kind of things in public that they do not believe in? Would they do it on TV where it will haunt them forever?

Unless you really believe that, chances are that the people screaming such things really are Teabaggers who are part of a lunatic fringe or white supremacist groups associating themselves with the lunatics for purposes other than the intended protest.
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,671
Points
26
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.
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
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:

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
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/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/some-oklahomans-want-a-state-militia-to-resist-washington-/1
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
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/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/some-oklahomans-want-a-state-militia-to-resist-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

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.
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,671
Points
26
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?
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
25,962
Points
47
Armed political cadres going around intimidating voters? Sounds like something that goes on in the Congo or Ethiopia. That could never happen here.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
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.
 

Linda_D

Cyburbian
Messages
1,725
Points
19
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.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
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?
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.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
23
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
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.

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.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
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".
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,689
Points
19
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:

mgk920

Cyburbian
Messages
4,202
Points
26
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
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
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"...
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,671
Points
26
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"


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.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
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/
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,689
Points
19
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.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,416
Points
36
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...
 

chrisinmd

Cyburbian
Messages
322
Points
11
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.
 

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
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.

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 a moderator:

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,689
Points
19
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:

TexanOkie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,903
Points
19
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.
 

CJC

Cyburbian
Messages
1,689
Points
19
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:

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,671
Points
26
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.
 
Top