Quote :

"we don't get our rights and privileges from each individual human, we get it from a government."

Yes I would also disagree with this premise. The more religious among us (and the Founders) claim that our human rights come, not from gov't, but from God. All the Constitution was supposed to do was set up a gov't that would recognize the rights we already possessed by the mere fact of our humanity.

But if you think our rights come from gov't, then it is understandable in your claim that it is the responsibility of the gov't to provide and care for us.

Quote :

"The government's role is to provide for the people, "

I would disagree with this also. The government's job is to protect us from invasion and set up the environment for the individual to pursue his own star. The gov't gives us redress for force and fraud but does not give us our sustenance. The gov't is not our parent, allowing its adult children to live in the basement as long as they behave.

Quote :

"you're either ignorantly or willfully disregarding the overall greed present in humans"

What is Greed?
Yes our system is based on self-interest. But who is angelic enough to decide when that self-interest has crossed over to greed? A priest? A politician?

Americans are an extremely charitable people, especially when the gov't allows them to keep more of their own money. But charity should never be mandatory, never forced by the gov't. That is simply theft.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2010 10:44:38 AM

Quote :

"Why? They don't need an amendment that allows them to spend money on welfare."

So then they also don't need an amendment to throw you in jail for 30 years without a trial. Sounds good to me!

Quote :

"Notice, I'm not saying to throw out the Constitution, but I'm saying that it shouldn't stay in the way of our liberties, our happiness or in doing what's morally right."

Hahahahaha. The Constitution doesn't stand in the way of our liberties, dude. IT FUCKING PROTECTS THEM.

Quote :

"You're making the argument that the Constitution should be followed."

yes. because NOT following it is what allows the government to throw you in jail for 30 years without a trial.

Quote :

"Just because that wrong was corrected, doesn't refute the fact that the Constitution was reprehensibly wrong for a period of 10 years."

Actually it does. It shows that there is a way to fix the Constitution when it needs to be fixed.

Quote :

"Similarly, people are trying to introduce a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. If such an amendment was to be put in, would you then support the government in the ban because it's "in the Constitution?""

I would say that the gov't would then be allowed to enforce the ban. But that is NOT equal to me saying the ban is "right." I would actually probably work to have the amendment repealed.

Quote :

"we don't get our rights and privileges from each individual human, we get it from a government. "

Not at all true. Our rights are naturally held. All men have the right to freedom of speech, for example. Our Constitution codified the protection of that right.

Quote :

"You're basically making an argument against any organized government. "

Not at all. I'm making an argument against an unrestrained government. Which is what our Constitution gives us. Which is why I sure as fuck want our government to follow the damned thing!

Quote :

"The government's role is to provide for the people,"

Again, NOT FUCKING TRUE. The government's role is to protect the people from each other and from foreign nations. The notion that governments should "provide for the people" is a relatively new one.

Quote :

"Do you honestly think that charity can provide the same level of help that the government can to the same number of people?"

Actually, yes. I firmly believe that charities can both provide the level of help needed and also, more importantly, determine who actually needs that help.

Quote :

"Do you think people are just going to open up free medical insurance and just pay poor people's hospital bills?"

It was done in the past. Doctors use to barter their services to the disadvantaged or even offer it free of charge. Some doctors have even tried to offer their own services for a low monthly rate. But guess who stepped in and stopped that? Your wonderful government!

Quote :

"Be honest with yourself, do you really give as much as you could give to charity?"

Why should I? The government already provides for people. Why give more when I'm already having so much taken from me in the first place?

9/17/2010 11:18:34 AM

Quote :

"Yes I would also disagree with this premise. The more religious among us (and the Founders) claim that our human rights come, not from gov't, but from God. All the Constitution was supposed to do was set up a gov't that would recognize the rights we already possessed by the mere fact of our humanity."

I understand if you disagree with this premise. I too would like to disagree with it too. But lets be honest with ourselves. Who enforces the Constitution? The government, more specifically the courts. I would love to think that we just get these rights out of thin air. I really would, but we know that it's our government who has really granted us these rights.

Take "freedom" of speech. Can you really say whatever you want? Of course not. Why not? The government has setup limits to determine what's obscene (I believe it's Miller's test for obscenity, or something like that). It's been determined that freedom of speech simply means that political speech is protected. We can't go around suggesting that we blow up people and buildings. In many cases, that very freedom is restricted.

Gun ownership, that's restricted. It's restricted to what guns we can own (I'm not going to argue whether we should or should not allow this) and we keep ex-felons from owning guns as well. Again, another "right" that's restricted.

Ultimately, it's the government who decides what we can and can't do. It's not "God," it's not the Founding father's, and they aren't just "understood" to exist.

Quote :

"I would disagree with this also."

That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you that the government shouldn't protect us. They are absolutely there to protect us. They protect us from criminals and foreign threats. I also feel that they should protect us from being a complete victim of circumstance. They should protect the people who have a job and who barely are able to make ends meet. I see no reason why they shouldn't, unless you just disagree on a simple basis of principle.

Quote :

"What is Greed? Yes our system is based on self-interest."

That is greed. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I love how companies are allowed to act in their own self-interest to compete with each other. But you have to admit that there have been times when human greed has fucked other people over.

Quote :

"But who is angelic enough to decide when that self-interest has crossed over to greed? A priest? A politician? "

Come on buddy. I think we're all capable of telling. Would you say that the people who were selling toxic mortgages in order to make big bucks and making bad loans were greedy? I think any reasonable person is capable of determining when someone is acting in their own self-interest in an immoral way.

Quote :

"Americans are an extremely charitable people, especially when the gov't allows them to keep more of their own money. But charity should never be mandatory, never forced by the gov't. That is simply theft."

I'll agree with you that Americans are extremely charitable. But much of that charity only happens out of the self-interest of people and companies, not out of the goodness of their heart. They do it for a tax write off.

Let me give you an example. There's a system called the Interfaith Hospitality network that houses families (they have to have a child) at a church for a week. They help them get a job and they help them get a car. The cars are all donated. But do you know why the cars are donated? Because people take their rust bucket of a car that they probably wouldn't be able to sell and they give it to them and they write it off for a higher amount than what the car would probably be worth. But even my own mother, a staunch Republican, admitted that without the ability to write things off on your taxes, that system would probably never work, or it wouldn't work as good as it does.

Again, I really think you are far more optimistic about charity than I am.

Quote :

"Hahahahaha. The Constitution doesn't stand in the way of our liberties, dude. IT FUCKING PROTECTS THEM."

Yeah, ask what the homosexual population that wants gay marriage thinks about people wanting to make a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Get a clue. It's a piece of paper that's equally capable of protecting or violating our liberties.

Quote :

"yes. because NOT following it is what allows the government to throw you in jail for 30 years without a trial."

Wrong. You have such a simple view of the world. It's like you are completely unable to distinguish between what's moral and unmoral. I guess that would make you a good capitalist then. It's funny that you keep trying to bring up this example, even though I've shat on it time and time again. It's an irrelevant point as I'm not saying the government should be allowed to do immoral acts, but rather moral acts.

Quote :

"Actually it does. It shows that there is a way to fix the Constitution when it needs to be fixed."

It also shows that it's capable of being broken. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote :

"I would say that the gov't would then be allowed to enforce the ban. But that is NOT equal to me saying the ban is "right." I would actually probably work to have the amendment repealed."

I'm so glad to know that there are people out here that would so blindly follow the Constitution simply because it is the Constitution. I'm glad to know that there are people out there that think that the Constitution is the highest authority, and that morality doesn't trump the Constitution.

If in the 1920s/1930s a state decided to legalize alcohol sales, would you be against that simply because it's against the Constitution, even though on a moral level you agree with the state? Fucking Christ, how much of a sheeple can you be? You have this childish notion of the application of laws. You seem to think that if you violate the Constitution once, REGARDLESS OF REASON, then we can violate ALL of it. You know that's a load of bullshit.

Same reason why even though the speed limit says 70 MPH, that even though you have a dieing person in your car and you're rushing to the hospital by going 100 MPH, by allowing that guy to go 100 MPH, that suddenly the speedlimit isn't applicable to ANYONE at anytime REGARDLESS of reason. I guess you're simply too stupid to think in more abstract ways.

Oh, and you are aware that there are two references to the term "General Welfare" in the Constitution, right?

The most relevant case in the Taxing and Spending Clause is in the following:

[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose

You realize that there are two conflicting interpretations of this? One of which allows for the creation of welfare, and another that bans it.

Man, I love multiple interpretations of the Constitution.

Quote :

"Not at all. I'm making an argument against an unrestrained government. Which is what our Constitution gives us. Which is why I sure as fuck want our government to follow the damned thing!"

I agree that the government should be restrained. I think morality is a pretty damn good restraint.

Quote :

"The government's role is to protect the people from each other and from foreign nations. The notion that governments should "provide for the people" is a relatively new one."

You don't think that welfare protects people from other people's greed? Hmmmm... Again, you're showing your inability to think abstractly.

Quote :

"ctually, yes. I firmly believe that charities can both provide the level of help needed and also, more importantly, determine who actually needs that help."

So if the KKK established a charity to only help white people, that would be ok? I love how you're now allowing for the creation of a system inherent in inequality.

Quote :

"Why should I? The government already provides for people"

9/17/2010 2:43:49 PM

Quote :

"if the gov't wants to say that Islam is outlawed, that's OK with you."

Quote :

"So, just because it doesn't say the government can throw you in jail for 30 years for no reason, that doesn't mean it can't, right?"

The Bill of Rights says specifically that the government cannot take either of those actions.

Where does it specifically prohibit the government from establishing, for example, a public health insurance option?

9/17/2010 4:54:01 PM

10th Amendment.

9/17/2010 9:30:42 PM

Quote :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It doesn't seem clear whether this amendment is implying that the federal government is prohibited from asserting powers not delegated to it by the Constitution and only the states may assert those powers, or if it is allowing the states to assert powers in addition to those of the United States government.

It allows a state to establish a public option unless prohibited by that individual state's Constitution, but does it prohibit the federal government from doing the same?

9/17/2010 10:25:02 PM

it absolutely prohibits the federal gov't from doing it.

Basically, the 10th amendment says that whatever powers aren't given to the fed, that aren't denied to the states, belong to the states.

9/18/2010 2:05:43 AM

Did they not teach you the term "Implied Powers" in ELPS or ELPSA? The US government has powers that aren't specifically delegated to the federal government but are implied, as it it is impossible for the Constitution to anticipate all future problems.

Here, I'll let you brush up on common fucking knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

Specifically:

Quote :

"Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law."

9/18/2010 4:29:12 AM

Words of wisdom from Delaware's Republican Tea Party candidate for Senate, Christine O'Donnell:

Quote :

"One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that. … We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/18/christine-odonnell-witchcraft/

Quote :

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.html

Quote :

"I’ll tell you, I just came back from the Middle East, and it was refreshing. With all that is going on, it was refreshing not to be constantly bombarded with smut all the time."

- MSNBC, 3/23/04

Quote :

"Evolution is a theory and it's exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put — that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory. But creation... Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/the_gops_delaware_senate_nomin.html

PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS PERSON.

PEOPLE.

VOTED.

FOR.

THIS.

PERSON.

She won the primary election by six percentage points. What the fuck, Delaware? It's like Gary Birdsong and Rachel Ray had a baby, and the Republicans of Delaware elected it to run for Senate.

9/18/2010 11:40:27 AM

^ It’s like what Clinton said a few days ago:
"In his 30-minute speech, Clinton told the audience that Americans are angry with reason.

"But when you make an important decision in your life when you're angry, there's an 80 percent chance you'll make a mistake," he said.”

Tea party primary wave breaks in the Northwest
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf/2010/09/tea_party_primary_wave_breaks.html

9/18/2010 12:52:54 PM

Quote :

"Did they not teach you the term "Implied Powers" in ELPS or ELPSA? The US government has powers that aren't specifically delegated to the federal government but are implied, as it it is impossible for the Constitution to anticipate all future problems. Here, I'll let you brush up on common fucking knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers"

Don't worry, you're not schooling anyone here. The general welfare and necessary and proper clauses give the government some flexibility in enforcing the laws they make, but it doesn't imply anything about the actual role of each branch. Why would we even need a constitution if those clauses were, more or less, authorizing Congress to make any law that doesn't violate the bill of rights? They could have just done away with the rest of it. It could have been the bill of rights plus one line: do whatever you want, as long as you think it'll get you back in office for another term.

If you want to expand the role of the federal government, it needs to be done through an amendment. Why? Because otherwise, you can have 51% of the representatives passing a law that 49% vehemently disagree with. There are many of that think the 51/49 situation is excellent...so long as their party is in power. The American people are usually misguided, and exceedingly fickle, so as much as it might benefit "your side" at any point in time, there will come another point where it proves to be a great detriment.

Expanding federal power is much more difficult to do using the amendment process. Imagine, in today's political climate, trying to pass an amendment. Two thirds support in both houses? It'd be hard, unless it was really a non-controversial measure. I can't even imagine a situation where 2/3s of the state legislatures called a constitutional convention, but that would be pretty fucking incredible. For 3/4s of the states to ratify would be even more bizarre.

9/18/2010 2:41:28 PM

Quote :

"Did they not teach you the term "Implied Powers" in ELPS or ELPSA?"

Implied? As in, not actually there? Guess what the 10th Amendment then means, buddy... To take one clause and then let it override the whole rest of the fucking Constitution is absurd, especially as ^ pointed out.

9/18/2010 4:55:51 PM

Quote :

"Don't worry, you're not schooling anyone here. The general welfare and necessary and proper clauses give the government some flexibility in enforcing the laws they make, but it doesn't imply anything about the actual role of each branch."

You realize that Alexander Hamilton argued that the General Welfare clause is what allows the Federal Government to tax the people and spend that money on education and agriculture, as long as the government doesn't favor any part of the country more than the other? It's because of that interpretation of the clause that there is Federal money that goes to states to be used for education. Similarly, it's because of that clause that they tax us to spend on welfare. The general welfare clause gives the government more than just some flexibility in enforcing laws. It allows them to tax us as how they see fit to benefit the general welfare of the country and people.

Quote :

"Implied? As in, not actually there? Guess what the 10th Amendment then means, buddy..."

Guess what the General Welfare Clause means...

The General Welfare Clause allows the government to tax and spend to the benefit of the general welfare.

It's right there in the constitution.

9/18/2010 5:54:10 PM

no see the constitution was meant to promote right-wing values, it says no taxes and jesus in the schools WHY DO YOU LIBRULZ HATE FREEDOM

9/18/2010 6:18:13 PM

no, it really doesn't. That's the way it has been misinterpreted. Again, to take one clause and make it negate the rest of the document is absurd. You can be guaranteed that were the founding fathers to write that document today, they would have left that clause out.

9/18/2010 7:58:22 PM

Quote :

"no, it really doesn't. That's the way it has been misinterpreted"

LOL! WHAT? How do you know that you're simply not misinterpreting the Constitution?

Quote :

"Again, to take one clause and make it negate the rest of the document is absurd."

It doesn't negate the rest of the document. The Constitution sets up the framework of our government, and part of that framework is the ability for the government to tax and spend to the benefit of the general welfare of the rest of the country. That doesn't negate shit, but rather gives them the authority through the "Necessary and Proper Clause" to setup programs that carries out that task. You may not LIKE it. And that's perfectly fine if you don't like it. I'm not debating what you do or don't like.

Quote :

"You can be guaranteed that were the founding fathers to write that document today, they would have left that clause out."

I'm glad to see morons like you eating up the revisionist history put forth by the right wing propaganda machine.

I guess you simply aren't aware of the two common interpretations of the "General Welfare Clause" that have been put forth by at least two of the founding fathers. Here, I'll quote wikipedia instead of copping out and telling you it's "common fucking knowledge."

"The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other."

As you can see, both conflicting interpretations are by none other than the FOUNDING FUCKING FATHERS!

Not to mention the article goes on to mention:

"While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years."

Amazing. So not only was it just one of the founding fathers that supported that view, but at least a total of three who supported that view.

I really am amazed at your ability to bring up moot points like "HURRR DEE DURRRR IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE HERE THEY WOULD LEAVE THAT OUT HURRR DEEEEE DURRRRR" when their actions and what they have personally said on the matter says otherwise. And your misguided point is moot on the simple fact that THEY'RE FUCKING DEAD!

[Edited on September 18, 2010 at 9:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2010 9:08:39 PM

Quote :

"As you can see, both conflicting interpretations are by none other than the FOUNDING FUCKING FATHERS!"

Yep. And one of them from before ratification, the other when he was in power and was trying to justify what he was doing. In other words, the second one was when the guy knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, so he twisted it. not a huge shock that a politician would do such a thing.

9/18/2010 9:36:22 PM

Quote :

"Yep. And one of them from before ratification, the other when he was in power and was trying to justify what he was doing. In other words, the second one was when the guy knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, so he twisted it. not a huge shock that a politician would do such a thing."

LOL! Just a second ago you were putting the Founding Fathers up on a pedestal claiming that they would remove it from the Constitution if they were writing it now, and now you're saying that they're like every other politician who interprets a vague document in a way to suit their own interests?

Are you somehow related to John Kerry?

Because quite honestly, from the way you're sounding, you are interpreting the Constitution to justify getting rid of a program you don't support, and anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation isn't reading it "right."

9/19/2010 12:26:20 AM

i'm not blasting all of them. just the one that ignored the document he helped write for political expediency. if you'll note, he initially argued that it only allowed execution of power already granted by the Constitution.

funny that you would quote Hamilton and then bring up John Kerry. The two would probably get along very well...

9/19/2010 12:57:28 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/18/the-tea-party-s-anarchist-streak.html

Tea Party gets called out for being retarded (basically).

Quote :

"What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak—its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns."

Quote :

"But where the New Left was young and looked forward to a new Aquarian age, the Tea Party is old and looks backward to a capitalist-constitutionalist paradise that, needless to say, never existed. The strongest note in its tannic brew is nostalgia. Tea Partiers are constantly talking about “restoring honor,” getting back to America’s roots, and “taking back” their country."

Quote :

"The Roanoke Tea Party, for example, proposes a Freedom for Virginians Act, which would empower the state to invalidate laws it deems unconstitutional. It’s been settled business that you can’t do this since the Supreme Court decided McCullough v. Maryland in 1819, but never mind. Beck, a century more modern, feeds his audience quack history that says the fall from grace was the progressive era, when Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson introduced socialism into the American bloodstream."

Lots of good LOLs in this article.

9/19/2010 5:09:59 AM

^ You look to Jacob Weisberg for objectivity? Sweet Jesus.

9/19/2010 7:55:50 AM

BTW, wacky comments never seemed to hurt Joe Biden, spöokyjon.

9/19/2010 8:40:50 AM

I actually was about to say that I shouldn't be that surprised, considering she's running for Biden's seat.

9/19/2010 9:20:30 AM

Speaking of which...

Quote :

"Do you know, where does this phrase ’separation of church and state’ come from? It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. … The exact phrase ’separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they’re Nazis."

He's the Republican Tea Party candidate that just won the primary for one of the house seats in, you guessed it, Delaware.

9/19/2010 10:10:16 AM

The Tea Party and the Value of Craziness

Quote :

"Here's my first impression of the tea party movement: It's a rabidly right-wing phenomenon with a shaky grasp of history, a strain of intolerance and xenophobia, a paranoia about Barack Obama, and an unhealthy reverence for Fox News. Any movement that doesn't firmly exclude Birchers, birthers, and Islamaphobes is not a movement for me. Here's my second impression of the tea party movement: We are lucky to have it."

Quote :

"Conservatives are sometimes accused of being more interested in finding heretics than converts. Tea partiers offer a wrinkle on that. They are determined to root out RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), who they think have betrayed the party's economic principles. But in their own ranks, they seem happy to have everyone with an aversion to the enlargement of government, no matter how crackpot they may be on other issues."

Quote :

"It would be a great thing if sensible, temperate, consistently libertarian citizens would mobilize en masse to force similar changes today. Until then, the tea party will have to do."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/the-tea-party-and-the-value-of

Right now the goal of the left seems to be to marginalize the tea party movement and make them look crazy in any way possible. Now, it's definitely true that there are a ton of batshit insane tea partiers. I doubt anyone will deny that. The problem is that the "sanity" being offered by the left is not sanity at all. I would rather have a libertarian movement, minus all the social conservatism and general lunacy, but if this is what it's going to take to rally the masses, it's better than the alternative.

9/19/2010 11:34:23 AM

I don't think you have it granular enough. In areas where the left thinks they'll lose to the Tea Party candidate, they are doing what politics does, in areas where they aren't worried they aren't commenting.

I mean you have Karl Rove coming out bashing Tea Partiers, he's hardly a progressive.

9/19/2010 12:17:15 PM

The Republicans are fucking terrified because they gambled and unleashed this Tea Party movement in an attempt to rally support for the mid-terms. Now it's cannibalizing the party and forcing all of the reasonable center-right people to move to the left. They did it to themselves and now they're paying the price having to put up with all the Teabagging insanity.

9/19/2010 6:01:23 PM

^ That is like suggesting the Democratic party unleashed the Green Party. It did no such thing.

That said, unlike the Green Party, the Tea Party won't survive the 2012 election. They sound to me like a single issue movement. And once that issue is dealt with, they will dissolve back into the two dominant parties.

9/19/2010 11:03:33 PM

These people aren't going away, because unlike the Green Party, they're glued together through ideology and not one very specific big issue (or lots of small very similar issues). These people believe they're relevant now and were formerly aligned with the Republicans, but they're so extreme and radical in their views that they're marginalizing any momentum they might have instead of working to change things little by little which is the only way anything really gets done in American politics.

They're not going away because they identify with a small, but mainstream ideology. They can't possibly remain as fervent and aggressive as they are right now over a long period of time, but they won't go away altogether and until they learn to compromise and tone down their rhetoric some, they'll continue to alienate any allies they might have.

I think everyone can admire their passion for their beliefs, but their tactics for being heard is completely fucking retarded, even to those who might find common ground.

9/19/2010 11:18:02 PM

Quote :

" Now it's cannibalizing the party and forcing all of the reasonable center-right people to move to the left."

I don't think it's doing that. I think it's merely splitting the right's vote between nut bag tea partiers or, less nutbag typical republican. It's simply happenstance that the left benefits as a result.

9/19/2010 11:23:01 PM

I mean, it's already happened to a certain extent. Colin Powell, Arlen Specter, definitely some others have all moved more to the center in the past few years. Hell, even the last Republican presidential candidate, McCain, had to put up a huge fight in his senate primary against an arch-conservative. You'd think that if there was anyone who could easily handle all opponents in a simple primary, it would be the party's presidential candidate from less than two years ago. Murkowski is running in Alaska as an independent which is going to seriously hurt Joe Miller's electability.

As more and more incumbent politicians have to fight for their lives in positions they've easily won in the past, they're either going to have to move more to the right to survive which will hurt their general electability or go in the other direction and become more moderate. We're seeing time and time again that the Tea Party is forcing out politicians who aren't radical enough for their views and by doing so they're only hurting their chances of getting people into office.

9/19/2010 11:38:12 PM

Quote :

"the goal of the left seems to be to marginalize the tea party movement and make them look crazy in any way possible. "

Actually that seems like the goal of both establishment parties.

Every candidate has skeletons. The difference is that the establishment parties are experts at hiding the crazy of their candidates. The Tea Party people are not slick, smooth politicians. I find that endearing.

When it comes to explaining their over-spending and over-taxing, the two establishment parties don't have a leg to stand on when compared to the Tea Party. All that is left to them is to keep harping on any other issue or personal peccadilloes.

The GOP better embrace the smaller gov't agenda of the Tea Party or face extinction.

9/20/2010 8:58:30 AM

That would almost make sense if you were talking about the Libertarian Party.

9/20/2010 9:37:47 AM

^ The two parties a very similar in that way. The difference is that the tea party doesn't care about the drug war or any of the cultural aspects of libertarianism.

9/20/2010 9:42:42 AM

Quote :

"the goal of the left seems to be is to marginalize the tea party movement and anyone who dares disagree with their positions to make them look crazy/racist/greedy/bigoted/uncaring in any way possible."

Fixed.

9/20/2010 10:01:56 AM

I don't believe the Libertarian Party has the aversion to reality that the Tea Party does. While I don't remotely agree with libertarianism, it's a rational, well thought out ideology. I have fundamental disagreements with the libertarian philosophy, but I totally see where they're coming from. There is a thought process behind it.

What does the Tea Party stand for? Less taxes. And what else? Who knows? Smaller government? Where were they when Bush was in office? What solutions do they offer? What is their plan for moving forward given the endemic bigotry in their ranks and even among their leaders? Are they concerned about what seems to be a largely uniform distrust of and disbelief in science, again, prevalent in both their supporters and their leaders? Why do they largely support the Bush doctrine? What does any of this have to do with smaller government?

9/20/2010 10:09:41 AM

^ Where are you getting that? The best I can find is some "Contract from America":

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Seems to say nothing bigoted or anti-science or pro-Bush doctrine, whatever that means. It doesn't call for cutting spending, just ending "runaway government spending", which is logically defensible, as just ending the growth of spending would restore solvency within a number of years as population growth, inflation, and bracket-creep raise revenue. That said, they do actually name a program they want to cut spending on, Government-run Health Care. Ask either a Republican or Democrat and they probably couldn't name a single program to cut, much less one as large as the latest Health Care spending bill.

9/20/2010 11:19:36 AM

Quote :

"Seems to say nothing bigoted or anti-science or pro-Bush doctrine, whatever that means. It doesn't call for cutting spending, just ending "runaway government spending", which is logically defensible, as just ending the growth of spending would restore solvency within a number of years as population growth, inflation, and bracket-creep raise revenue. That said, they do actually name a program they want to cut spending on, Government-run Health Care. Ask either a Republican or Democrat and they probably couldn't name a single program to cut, much less one as large as the latest Health Care spending bill."

Have you been listening at all lately? These 15-25% of the population people are largely the same people who poll thinking that "evolution isn't true" or "Obama is a Muslim." Watch videos of them. They're mostly redneck, uninformed white Americans (aka racists). And I've heard and read on more than one occasion their replies to "What exactly would you like cut?" "All of it." "Can you be more specific?" "All of it." That's because they've been fed that spending is bad and government is bad and the only way we can live in the utopia they all dream about is to get rid of government altogether. These people have no idea what they're talking about because there is hardly a critical thinker in the bunch of them. They just repeat all the stupid ideas they hear without understanding exactly what it is they're talking about.

9/20/2010 11:50:28 AM

Generalize much? Do all democrats really believe we should nationalize the entire economy and tax every cent earned by the rich? Although I have heard a democrat say exactly this one more than one occasion, I suspect not, so don't let the 10% determine your outlook on an entire political movement.

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/20/2010 12:02:26 PM

See... you're dismissing this without fully understanding it. The percentage of people who don't believe in evolution in this country is something like 45%. The number of people who think Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in this country is around 25% (thanks Fox News). Don't come in here with your bullshit 10% and try to act like you know what you're talking about. These people are uninformed and dead wrong about a lot things, including their philosophy on politics.

9/20/2010 12:05:05 PM

Quote :

"These people are uninformed and dead wrong about a lot things, including their philosophy on politics."

Could this not also be said for every political party? As far as I'm concerned, only the libertarian party is not wrong about a lot of things. Which party do you believe is dead right most of the time?

9/20/2010 12:10:08 PM

Ok. So let me get this straight. You think that these people are well-informed and that their political philosophy of "Cut It All" is a good one? Wait, you're a libertarian... that IS what you think. Nevermind, I didn't know you were a Teabagger.

9/20/2010 12:16:44 PM

Quote :

"Where are you getting that? The best I can find is some "Contract from America": 1. Protect the Constitution 2. Reject Cap & Trade 3. Demand a Balanced Budget 4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government 6. End Runaway Government Spending 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care 8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy 9. Stop the Pork 10. Stop the Tax Hikes Seems to say nothing bigoted or anti-science or pro-Bush doctrine, whatever that means"

I'm getting that from actual Tea Party candidates' mouths. Even if you want to ignore the wealth of shit spewed forth by Tea Party supporters, their actual leaders and candidates say things that are bigoted, anti-science, and pro-Bush doctrine. I'm not talking about some idealized list of party ideals, I'm talking about what actual human beings say and do.

9/21/2010 12:06:19 PM

And I'm sure I can find worse stuff spewed by republicans and democrats. Such quotes are great reasons to vote against such candidates. I don't see them as proof that all republicans and democrats should be marginalized by association.

9/21/2010 3:48:24 PM

Quote :

"Angle: Two American cities under Sharia law (CNN) - Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle told a crowd of Tea Party rally-goers last week that two cities — Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas — are under Sharia law, the sacred law of Islam. “We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it,” Angle said according to audio of the rally obtained by the Washington post. “My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas, are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/09/angle-two-american-cities-under-sharia-law/

Breaking news: Republicans and the Tea Party are completely divorced from any semblance of reality.

10/10/2010 9:19:23 PM

I think I would have to hear the entire speech to hear the context. You just cant throw something like that out and not back it up. Of course these type "clips" are SO common around election time and even though most are harmless or taken out of context.

10/10/2010 9:22:13 PM

Here's the context:

Quote :

"In a recording of the rally provided to The Associated Press by the Mesquite Local News, a man is heard asking Angle : "I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States ... on a TV program just last night, I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan and the residents of the city, they want them out. They want them out. So, I want to hear your thoughts about that." Angle responds that "we're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe it isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it." "My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."

Here's the full audio recording of the campaign event: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/SharronAngle0929.mp3
It's about 43 minutes in.

10/10/2010 9:33:06 PM

Thanks for that. Has she explained her position? I just googled Dearborn, Michigan and it turns out to be the second most muslims in the world outside the middle east. Apparently they have changed some rules/policies in school and some christians got arrested at a muslim event... so Im not sure where she was coming from on this.. probably just some good ole fashion fear mongering.

10/11/2010 11:12:42 AM

Quote :

"Murkowski is running in Alaska as an independent which is going to seriously hurt Joe Miller's electability."

You were right.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/breaking-murkowski-to-declare-victory-in-alaska-senate-race/?hpt=T2

Quote :

"Murkowski's statement will essentially be a triumphant declaration of having beaten back the challenge from her opponent Joe Miller, who was backed by the Tea Party Express. "We've said all along, we'll wait for the votes to be counted," Murkowski Campaign Manager Kevin Sweeney told CNN. "The votes will be counted this afternoon." When asked if, in fact, Murkowski will claim victory in her evening speech at an Anchorage Laborer's Hall, Sweeney told CNN, "Yes." Currently, Alaska's Division of Elections is counting 100,868 votes for Murkowski versus 90,448 for Miller. 8,153 of Murkowski's votes have been contested by the Miller campaign."

11/17/2010 4:52:01 PM

I'm wondering if the Murkowski and Crist incidents are going to make state parties change how people sign up for primaries and force them to sign a document saying they can't run if they don't win the primary.

11/18/2010 7:58:41 PM