[QUOTE=firstdown;713397]Not sure if the film was doctored but to be fair I should know the context of what she said before judging her. I don't have time to listen to her entire speech so I'll retract calling her a racist and leave it at that. I have not followed the story on Fox or any other news source and passed my judgment off a 30 second clip and should not pass judgment until I know the facts. I don't want to do what I accuse others of doing all the time.[/QUOTE]

Yes the clip that started all if this was edited to the point where the context was completely lost. If you watch or just read about what her entire speech was about it's quite obvious she is not a racist.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=dmek25;713398]all this huff and puff about a movement that will be long gone come 2012[/quote]

You're right. Once the Democrats are back out of office, the Tea Party movement will likely quiet down. :)

[url=http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1478]National (US) Poll * July 21, 2010 * Obama Approval Drops To Lowest - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut[/url]

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713396]I'm through talking to you. [B]If the Democrats came and burned down your house[/B], you'd find a way to justify it in your mind. You're just a party hack. There are others that can be saved from the brainwashing. You're simply a lost cause.

I guess the [B]American people all consent[/B] to the US government borrowing money from China to give to Hamas and to Pakistan?[/quote]

Nah, I'd shoot them dead on the spot then find a way to justify my action to the police.

Yes they do, collectively the American people consent to everything America does. Those who vote and those who don't vote are culpable for the actions of America. To think otherwise if foolish.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713404]Nah, I'd shoot them dead on the spot then find a way to justify my action to the police.

Yes they do, collectively the American people consent to everything America does. Those who vote and those who don't vote are culpable for the actions of America. To think otherwise if foolish.[/quote]

Poor schmuck.

If doesn't matter in the end. Eff you I'm eating! Ha ha ha ha

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713404]Nah, I'd shoot them dead on the spot then find a way to justify my action to the police.

Yes they do, collectively the American people consent to everything America does. Those who vote and those who don't vote are culpable for the actions of America. To think otherwise if foolish.[/quote]

Sadly, I have to agree with Saden on this point.

IF and most likely when, the US population ever stops giving tacit consent to the government it would be through a violent uprising. As an example of tacit consent, if you drive a car, you have tacitly acknowledged the government's right to create laws enabling the safe conduct of interstate travel. Likewise, if you use dollars, you are acknowledging that the federal government has the right to use those same dollars. The high lack of voter turnout actually also represents the basic consent for this government.

If it was not consented to by a majority of non-voters we would see rebellions and uprisings. Most US citizens do accept the Federal and State government, even though most also have been spoon fed a whole ton of manure about the reality of how our government works. I think a lot of non-voters are people like me, who accept the fundamental concept of our government, but can't find one d*** person worth voting for, at least from the republican and democratic hegemony.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=dmek25;713398]all this huff and puff about a movement that will be long gone come 2012[/quote]

Like your job?

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713407]Sadly, I have to agree with Saden on this point.

IF and most likely when, the US population ever stops giving tacit consent to the government it would be through a violent uprising. As an example of tacit consent, if you drive a car, you have tacitly acknowledged the government's right to create laws enabling the safe conduct of interstate travel. Likewise, if you use dollars, you are acknowledging that the federal government has the right to use those same dollars. The high lack of voter turnout actually also represents the basic consent for this government.

If it was not consented to by a majority of non-voters we would see rebellions and uprisings. Most US citizens do accept the Federal and State government, even though most also have been spoon fed a whole ton of manure about the reality of how our government works. I think a lot of non-voters are people like me, who accept the fundamental concept of our government, but can't find one d*** person worth voting for, at least from the republican and democratic hegemony.[/quote]

Your argument would make sense if the government obeyed it's own laws. It does not. Therefore it is a illegitimate criminal enterprise. Yes people in the US have been dumbed down. What can I say, they'll make great pets. There is no consent, only the power of the Army and the police. Sooner or later they'll be out of the way. Then it's pay-back time and I can't wait. ha ha ha

[url=http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/will-thousands-of-police-layoffs-unleash-chaos-and-anarchy-across-america]Will Thousands Of Police Layoffs Unleash Chaos And Anarchy Across America?[/url]

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713407]Sadly, I have to agree with Saden on this point.

IF and most likely when, the US population ever stops giving tacit consent to the government it would be through a violent uprising. As an example of tacit consent, if you drive a car, you have tacitly acknowledged the government's right to create laws enabling the safe conduct of interstate travel. Likewise, if you use dollars, you are acknowledging that the federal government has the right to use those same dollars. The high lack of voter turnout actually also represents the basic consent for this government.

If it was not consented to by a majority of non-voters we would see rebellions and uprisings. Most US citizens do accept the Federal and State government, even though most also have been spoon fed a whole ton of manure about the reality of how our government works. I think a lot of non-voters are people like me, who accept the fundamental concept of our government, but can't find one d*** person worth voting for, at least from the republican and democratic hegemony.[/quote]
Excellent post sir .

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

One reason the defense industry will not be truly downsized is that the politicians don't want to have a flood of ex military running around. The police not so much, because they don't know how to operate the equipment that could really make the government scared, but we will never see true military cuts, and one day the US Caesar will find a message that resonates with the disenfranchised. but not this year.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713413]One reason the defense industry will not be truly downsized is that the politicians don't want to have a flood of ex military running around. The police not so much, because they don't know how to operate the equipment that could really make the government scared, but we will never see true military cuts, and one day the US Caesar will find a message that resonates with the disenfranchised. but not this year.[/quote]

The military is no longer the military. They have been enmeshed with other industries and the CIA. Nor is the responsibilty of the military in its hands solely. Private contractors don't answer to the public. If there were no contractors we would've had a draft for Iraq. The government follows the law only when it's profitable to someone connected to it. Look at how Goldman was held up while Lehman went down in flames. They've nationalized the little guys because the big boys -who control them- told them to do so. They're just warming up. If you thought Jorge Bush was bad, wait until President Hussein enters his lame duck period.

In a way you and Saden are right, but to admit that would mean that the majority of the American public is a bunch of idiotic jerks. I still have hope that isn't the case. The Tea Party movement gives me hope that this isn't the case by a long shot. Partisan hacks may believe that the Tea Party is all about Obama and the fact that Republicans are out of power. The Tea Party is about the fact that neither party represent them. In our eyes, this government is illegitimate through its own illegal actions.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Mattyk;713401]Yes the clip that started all if this was edited to the point where the context was completely lost. If you watch or just read about what her entire speech was about it's quite obvious she is not a racist.[/quote]

I will not go as far to say she is not a racist because I think the way she expressed what she was saying had a racist sound. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that back when she said that and knowing her father was kill by a few white men. Is she a racist today I don't know and not sure how you can say its quite obvious she is not a racist when you don't really know any thing about her.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

Regardless Obama and Co has fumbled yet again. First they "fully support" her losing her job, then they decide to have another look at the issue, and now they may call for her reinstatement (presser forthcoming in the next few minutes)??

Shouldn't they have maybe waited for all the facts to come in?

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=GMScud;713424]Regardless Obama and Co has fumbled yet again. First they "fully support" her losing her job, then they decide to have another look at the issue, and now they may call for her reinstatement (presser forthcoming in the next few minutes)??

Shouldn't they have maybe waited for all the facts to come in?[/quote]

Everyday with them is "Amateur Hour".

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=firstdown;713426]Everyday with them is "Amateur Hour".[/quote]

Rumor has it that even if they called for her reinstatement, she may not want the job back. That would be classic. She is fully maintaining that a phone call from the White House forced her out of her job. Apparently she was on the road, and got a call on her cell saying she may have to resign. Then a few minutes later her phone rang again, and it was a USDA higher-up telling her to pull the car over and resign immediately. Huh.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713407][B]Sadly[/B], I have to agree with Saden on this point.

IF and most likely when, the US population ever stops giving tacit consent to the government it would be through a violent uprising. As an example of tacit consent, if you drive a car, you have tacitly acknowledged the government's right to create laws enabling the safe conduct of interstate travel. Likewise, if you use dollars, you are acknowledging that the federal government has the right to use those same dollars. The high lack of voter turnout actually also represents the basic consent for this government.

If it was not consented to by a majority of non-voters we would see rebellions and uprisings. Most US citizens do accept the Federal and State government, even though most also have been spoon fed a whole ton of manure about the reality of how our government works. I think a lot of non-voters are people like me, who accept the fundamental concept of our government, but can't find one d*** person worth voting for, at least from the republican and democratic hegemony.[/quote]

I don't know why that's sad, we should celebrate :food-smil

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

scud, if Obama waits to collect all of the facts, its " why is he taking so long?" if he acts immediately, it " why not wait to get all the facts?" which way would you like it? he waited with the spill, and you screamed on him. he reacted immediately with her, and you screamed on him. we already know your political views. don't keep backing it up with this nonsense

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713431]I don't know why that's sad, we should celebrate :food-smil[/quote]

It's sad because what he's saying is, we have a shitty government because the general populace is a bunch of schmucks!

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713431]I don't know why that's sad, we should celebrate :food-smil[/quote]
I dunno, but somehow felt like I was rooting for a Dallas win in order for the Skins to get in the playoffs

:)

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=dmek25;713435]scud, if Obama waits to collect all of the facts, its " why is he taking so long?" if he acts immediately, it " why not wait to get all the facts?" which way would you like it? he waited with the spill, and you screamed on him. he reacted immediately with her, and you screamed on him. we already know your political views. don't keep backing it up with this nonsense[/quote]

Nonsense? Comparing this to the spill is what's nonsense. Two totally different situations on so many levels that require two different reactions. Pretty obvious. Now shhhh. I'm listening to Gibbs right now, who just said that "members of this administration made determinations and judgments without the full set of facts. Mrs. Sherrod is owed an apology on behalf of this administration."

There you go. Straight from the mouthpiece of your Lord.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=dmek25;713435]scud, if Obama waits to collect all of the facts, its " why is he taking so long?" if he acts immediately, it " why not wait to get all the facts?" which way would you like it? he waited with the spill, and you screamed on him. he reacted immediately with her, and you screamed on him. we already know your political views. don't keep backing it up with this nonsense[/quote]

You know what I'm saying...the administration overreacted for sure but these people really don't give a sh*t what happened so long as they can say "look, the goofballs f'ed up again."

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=saden1;713449]You know what I'm saying...the administration overreacted for sure but these people really don't give a sh*t what happened so long as they can say "look, the goofballs f'ed up again."[/quote]

Not true. I care. I'm no Obama supporter to be sure, but unlike blowhards like Limbaugh, I'm not cheering for him to fail. But I'll damn sure point it out when he screws the pooch.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=firstdown;713423]I will not go as far to say she is not a racist because I think the way she expressed what she was saying had a racist sound. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that back when she said that and knowing her father was kill by a few white men. [B]Is she a racist today I don't know and not sure how you can say its quite obvious she is not a racist when you don't really know any thing about her[/B].[/quote]

Have you watched the entire clip or at least read about it?

I'm guessing no.

Here's the deal. She was telling a story of how she was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm. She struggled with this as she couldn't help but think of how many black farmers had lost their farms and here she is having to help a white person with the same issue. At that time she felt that whites had advantages over blacks and were treated better. But having worked with the white farmer she came to realize that the problem was bigger than black vs white and it was an experience that helped her grow as a person. I'm pretty confident she's not a racist.

[URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/former-agriculture-department-office-denies-racism-secretary-vilsack-stands-by-her-firing.html"]Former Agriculture Department Official Denies Racism, Is Backed By Fuller Video; Secretary Vilsack Stands By Her Firing* - Political Punch[/URL]

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713436]It's sad because what he's saying is, we have a shitty government because the general populace is a bunch of schmucks![/quote]

Our govt. has it's share of issues - no doubt. It is, however, far from shitty. Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Sudan - now that's shitty (or non-existent) government.

You would probably do well there. It's all about who has the biggest gun and not seeing civilization as anything more than your local tribe/clan/(insert hunter-gatherer grouping of choice).

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713468]Our govt. has it's share of issues - no doubt. It is, however, far from shitty. Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Sudan - now that's shitty (or non-existent) government.

You would probably do well there. It's all about who has the biggest gun and not seeing civilization as anything more than your local tribe/clan/(insert hunter-gatherer grouping of choice).[/quote]

That's like saying, eating gritts everyday sucks but at least it's not sawdust.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

You know what? In Oakland, I can walk into the street. Shout at the top of my lungs, "I HATE THIS F'ing CITY AND THE MAYOR IS AN IDIOT, THE POLICE ARE CORRUPT AND GOD BLESS THE KKK".

Now, the local population may take offence, I may have to beat a hasty retreat and the "idiot police" may just look the other way (proving the truth of my statement) as I run from those other members of the populace that who wish to persuade me about the error of my beliefs.

BUT, guess what, the police won't hunt me down to make an example of me. The mayor won't enact laws to ban or jail me. My mail will still come to my house. My driver's license won't be revoked. My taxes won't increase relative to those who support the police and mayor. I won't have to pay off a corrupt govt. official to get my trashed picked up the next day. The local utilities won't be able to charge me (as opposed to my neighbor) more for services rendered. etc. etc.

You're living with [I]300,000,000 other people[/I] in the US, Trample - deal.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713468]Our govt. has it's share of issues - no doubt. It is, however, far from shitty. Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Sudan - now that's shitty (or non-existent) government.

You would probably do well there. It's all about who has the biggest gun and not seeing civilization as anything more than your local tribe/clan/(insert hunter-gatherer grouping of choice).[/quote] Our gov't fails an awful lot , I think we are great because of the declerations , Bill of Rights , laws that were written years ago , much more than todays idiots . Our Corporations , small businesses not our elected officials turn our wheels and drive our jobs / economy , while Washington has continued to ring up debt and deficits . When we spend < local > 5 million dollars for a 70 ft stretch of highway , or use 2 million more on a 60 ft long < 4 ft. tall > bridge ... and it take over half a year ... thats bad . I agree that we are much better off here < I have never left our borders , nor will I > Washington needs to improve a great deal ... as they should do what is best for we the people .

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713470]That's like saying, eating gritts everyday sucks but at least it's not sawdust.[/quote]

1. Ain't nothing wrong with a daily plate o' grits.

2. Okay then - "shitty" compared to what? "shitty" compared to a perfect world in which we all agree on everything? "Shitty" compared to a govt. of a country with a population of 5,000,000 in which approximately only 20-30% of that population can actually vote? "Shitty" compared to Denmark?

The federal, state, and local system all have their flaws all overlap and all could be much better. That's what happens when 300 million, 43 million (population of California), and 400K (Oakland) or so people all have a voice in how the union, the state and the city will be governed.

Amazingly, not everyone agrees with one another.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713476]You know what? In Oakland, I can walk into the street. Shout at the top of my lungs, "I HATE THIS F'ing CITY AND THE MAYOR IS AN IDIOT, THE POLICE ARE CORRUPT AND GOD BLESS THE KKK".

Now, the local population may take offence, I may have to beat a hasty retreat and the "idiot police" may just look the other way (proving the truth of my statement) as I run from those other members of the populace that who wish to persuade me about the error of my beliefs.

BUT, guess what, the police won't hunt me down to make an example of me. The mayor won't enact laws to ban or jail me. My mail will still come to my house. My driver's license won't be revoked. My taxes won't increase relative to those who support the police and mayor. I won't have to pay off a corrupt govt. official to get my trashed picked up the next day. The local utilities won't be able to charge me (as opposed to my neighbor) more for services rendered. etc. etc.

You're living with [I]300,000,000 other people[/I] in the US, Trample - deal.[/quote]

That's not all you can do in Oakland.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/oakland-police-chief-threatens-to-cut-911-service-if-layoffs-go-as-planned-2010-7]Oakland Police Chief Threatens To Cut 911-Service If Layoffs Go As Planned[/url]

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=budw38;713478]Our gov't fails an awful lot , I think we are great because of the declerations , Bill of Rights , laws that were written years ago , much more than todays idiots . Our Corporations , small businesses not our elected officials turn our wheels and drive our jobs / economy , while Washington has continued to ring up debt and deficits . When we spend < local > 5 million dollars for a 70 ft stretch of highway , or use 2 million more on a 60 ft long < 4 ft. tall > bridge ... and it take over half a year ... thats bad . I agree that we are much better off here < I have never left our borders , nor will I > Washington needs to improve a great deal ... as they should do what is best for we the people .[/quote]

Okay, here is the list of countries with poplations of greater than 150 million:

1 China (1,338,760,000)
2 India (1,183,669,000)
3 United States (309,786,000)
4 Indonesia (234,181,400)
5 Brazil (193,253,000)
6 Pakistan (170,064,500)
7 Bangladesh (164,425,000)
8 Nigeria (158,259,000)

Which of these is doing a better job than us in terms of governing a huge mass of people (actually wayyy beyond huge)?

Yup. Our founding documents were inspired - but we are no longer an 18th century minor nation in a pre-industrialized world.

With 300 million people and multiple layers of government striving to both keep those 300 million people unified, protect their wide ranging iintereste, while at the same time give them a voice in federal and local govt. -- GUESS WHAT?? Waste & corruption happen. It is not the apocalypse, it is not the end of the govt., it is not a conspiracy - it just is. And we 300 million people muddle along trying to keep it together and not blow ourselves apart by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents that were written by a bunch of (very smart) privileged white men for the benefit of privileged white men.


Did I mention there are 300 million of us?

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713485]That's not all you can do in Oakland.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/oakland-police-chief-threatens-to-cut-911-service-if-layoffs-go-as-planned-2010-7]Oakland Police Chief Threatens To Cut 911-Service If Layoffs Go As Planned[/url][/quote]

What's your point? That Oakland's and California's populations made dumb choices that spent themselves into massive debt that will impede their ability to provide basic services? I agree. Was it corruption that caused the debt? undoubtedly some. Was it government waste? yup. Was it a lack of foresight by the voters? ding ding ding!!!! Ultimately, California's and Oakland's voters are going to have to pay the piper.

Does that mean Oakland is going to devolve into Somalia-like anarchy? Call me an optimist, but I highly doubt it. Perhaps it drops a few spots in "Best places in the US to live" - but, even w/ those problems, you think anyone will be saying "If only this were Bangladesh"?

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713487]Okay, here is the list of countries with poplations of greater than 150 million:

1 China (1,338,760,000)
2 India (1,183,669,000)
3 United States (309,786,000)
4 Indonesia (234,181,400)
5 Brazil (193,253,000)
6 Pakistan (170,064,500)
7 Bangladesh (164,425,000)
8 Nigeria (158,259,000)

[B]Which of these is doing a better job than us in terms of governing a huge mass of people (actually wayyy beyond huge)? [/B]

Yup. Our founding documents were inspired - but we are no longer an 18th century minor nation in a pre-industrialized world.

With 300 million people and multiple layers of government striving to both keep those 300 million people unified, protect their wide ranging iintereste, while at the same time give them a voice in federal and local govt. -- GUESS WHAT?? Waste & corruption happen. It is not the apocalypse, it is not the end of the govt., it is not a conspiracy - it just is. And we 300 million people muddle along trying to keep it together and not blow ourselves apart by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents that were written by a bunch of (very smart) privileged white men for the benefit of privileged white men.


Did I mention there are 300 million of us?[/quote]

Did you forget those enlightened Red bastards harvest convincts for their organs? Have you forgotten that China is a huge sweat shop with concentration camp labor? This is who you want to be like? They're doing a better job? Mao liquidated millions of people in the cultural revolution. The only thing they're doing better than us is accepting Western industry into their country because American politicians have sold out the American people.

The last time I was on an airplane I saw huge portions of land that no one has ever touched. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone.

The Constitution is one of the best documents ever written. Who cares if it was written by white men, so was the Magna Carta. You mention India, who's Constitution do you think they copied when they kicked out the British?

So what if it was written a long time ago. Christ was crucified a long time ago but his message is as true today as it was back then. Buddha lived a long time ago, so did Confucius. But I guess their message isn't relevant without a gas turbine or an internal combustible engine.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713492]Did you forget those enlightened Red bastards harvest convincts for their organs? Have you forgotten that China is a huge sweat shop with concentration camp labor? This is who you want to be like? They're doing a better job? Mao liquidated millions of people in the cultural revolution. The only thing they're doing better than us is accepting Western industry into their country because American politicians have sold out the American people.

The last time I was on an airplane I saw huge portions of land that no one has ever touched. There's plenty of room and resources for everyone. [/quote]

Wow. Could you miss the point even further?? It's like you are standing in front of one of those mall maps that says "The Point is Here" and your looking for it in the map of the basement garage. (Don't force me to bring on the "obtuse"!).

I guess you didn't understand my rhetorical question - "You think anyone will be saying 'If only this were Bangladesh'?" - to mean that, no matter how bad it gets in Oakland, no Oaklandian will be dreaming of a better life in Bangladesh. I also assumed you understood that I think the US is governing itself better than any of the listed countries - since that would be consistent with my previous arguments.

Sorry, I'll spell it out for the rhetorically challanged.

In my humble opinion, flawed though it may be in practice, the United States system of government as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (with its federalism and the devolution of power to the vaious states) is far and away the best system for governing large populations. Further, as it is applied today, even with only remnants of the original federalistic system in place, it is - far, far, [I]far [/I]and away - the best system currently governing a population of more than 150 million people.

[quote=Trample the Elderly;713492]The Constitution is one of the best documents ever written. Who cares if it was written by white men, so was the Magna Carta. You mention India, who's Constitution do you think they copied when they kicked out the British?

So what if it was written a long time ago. Christ was crucified a long time ago but his message is as true today as it was back then. Buddha lived a long time ago, so did Confucius. But I guess their message isn't relevant without a gas turbine or an internal combustible engine.[/quote]

Again, I apologize for the subtle rhetoric. I thought my deep admiration for the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights was apparent by indicating that, [I]even though [/I]they were written by rich white men [I]for[/I] rich white men, - over 200 hundred years later- a population of 300 million people with vastly disparate interests and with technological advances beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers [I]could still[/I] find unifying, binding principles that are relevant to them today "by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents."

But then - I forgot I am talkng to someone who thinks capping a deep sea oil well is like changing a pipe in your house. Sure the principles are the same, it's just that the implementation[I] may [/I]require a different level of expertise or specialised equipment.

Actually, your prior simplistic approach to the BP situation is an excellent analogy of the fundamental flaw in your political theory. The [I]practical[/I] application of the timeless principles set forth in our brilliant founding documents (Got it? I think they are good!) [I]may differ [/I]when they are applied to a population of 300 million people that is the most technologically advanced society the world has ever known and who all have a voice in the government [I]as opposed to[/I] their application to a pre-industrial population of 5 million where the government was chosen by a minority of the population all of whom had basically similar interests.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=GMScud;713451]Not true. I care. I'm no Obama supporter to be sure, but unlike blowhards like Limbaugh, I'm not cheering for him to fail. But I'll damn sure point it out when he screws the pooch.[/quote]

So do you think Obama screwed up in all of this? Yes or no?

Or it's just not that clear?

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;713502]Wow. Could you miss the point even further?? It's like you are standing in front of one of those mall maps that says "The Point is Here" and your looking for it in the map of the basement garage. (Don't force me to bring on the "obtuse"!).

I guess you didn't understand my rhetorical question - "You think anyone will be saying 'If only this were Bangladesh'?" - to mean that, no matter how bad it gets in Oakland, no Oaklandian will be dreaming of a better life in Bangladesh. I also assumed you understood that I think the US is governing itself better than any of the listed countries - since that would be consistent with my previous arguments.

Sorry, I'll spell it out for the rhetorically challanged.

In my humble opinion, flawed though it may be in practice, the United States system of government as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (with its federalism and the devolution of power to the vaious states) is far and away the best system for governing large populations. Further, as it is applied today, even with only remnants of the original federalistic system in place, it is - far, far, [I]far [/I]and away - the best system currently governing a population of more than 150 million people.



Again, I apologize for the subtle rhetoric. I thought my deep admiration for the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights was apparent by indicating that, [I]even though [/I]they were written by rich white men [I]for[/I] rich white men, - over 200 hundred years later- a population of 300 million people with vastly disparate interests and with technological advances beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers [I]could still[/I] find unifying, binding principles that are relevant to them today "by finding inspiration in those timeless founding documents."

But then - I forgot I am talkng to someone who thinks capping a deep sea oil well is like changing a pipe in your house. Sure the principles are the same, it's just that the implementation[I] may [/I]require a different level of expertise or specialised equipment.

Actually, your prior simplistic approach to the BP situation is an excellent analogy of the fundamental flaw in your political theory. The [I]practical[/I] application of the timeless principles set forth in our brilliant founding documents (Got it? I think they are good!) [I]may differ [/I]when they are applied to a population of 300 million people that is the most technologically advanced society the world has ever known and who all have a voice in the government [I]as opposed to[/I] their application to a pre-industrial population of 5 million where the government was chosen by a minority of the population all of whom had basically similar interests.[/QUOTE]

So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for. Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot. The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713513]So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for. [/quote]

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713513] Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot. [/quote]

We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;713513][B] The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. [/B] In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.[/quote]

Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political wil to cut [I]something[/I]. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=GMScud;713424]

Shouldn't they have maybe waited for all the facts to come in?[/quote]

Regardless of the outcome this reigns supreme right now. It's obvious that I lean to the left and not to discredit Obama because he had decent experience but at the same time he was a bit of a made for TV candidate. Once the administration settles in that has to leave.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=12thMan;713503]So do you think Obama screwed up in all of this? Yes or no?

Or it's just not that clear?[/quote]

Well, I think it is on Obama, even if he didn't make the phone call himself. I mean, Gibbs in his presser today said that he had "no knowledge" of anyone in the administration pushing for Sherrod's resignation. Then in the same breath he apologized for the administration acting without all the facts. Ummmm....

Bottom line is, someone in the administration made her firing happen, otherwise they wouldn't be apologizing. Ultimately Obama is responsible for the people with whom he surrounds himself. So yeah, it's on him. Frankly I think it was a rash decision by an administration anxious to prove it stands equally on both sides of the racial fence. And chances are they probably do. But they've stumbled so much on the issue that they now just look dumb.

This presidency has really wet the bed on race in a few major instances, which surprises me considering the skin color of the POTUS. I figured on issues of race he'd be more unifying than polarizing. Guess I was wrong. I mean, didn't his campaign emphasize that it wouldn't get caught up in racial issues? Oops. The whole Gates thing, this Black Panther voter-intimidation case, Van Jones, now Sherrod...

Do I smell Beer Summit V2.0? LOL.

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=tryfuhl;713526]Regardless of the outcome this reigns supreme right now. It's obvious that I lean to the left and not to discredit Obama because he had decent experience but at the same time he was a bit of a made for TV candidate. [B] Once the administration settles in [/B]that has to leave.[/quote]

They are close to halfway through his first term, two years in which Obama has enjoyed a dominant majority in Congress. That won't be the case come November. So at what point are they "settled in?"

[URL="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-watchdogs-mortgage-apf-1527849934.html?x=0"]His mortgage plan is failing[/URL], [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6JN20100721"]his race relations are poor[/URL], [URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38852.html"]many think he has mishandled Afghanistan,[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/obamas-endless-summer-of-spending/"]spending/debt/deficits are gigantic,[/URL] [URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/18/the_wrong_war_health_care_amid_jobs_crisis_104822.html"]he put jobs on the backburner while pushing healthcare,[/URL] [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/14/midterm-tensions-spark-pelosi-white-house-feud/"]and he is hearing desperate pleas from House Dems to campaign for them with November looming. [/URL]

So let me ask you, what constitutes "settling in?"

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

let me ask you something scud. do you think that racial issues are more in the fore front because we have a black president? not once during W's, or any other presidents term have i heard anyone refer to them as a "white" president. i guess because Obama is the first "non white", there will be some growing pains. i agree that Obama is walking a tight rope when dealing with this stuff. but not sure what he, or the administration, had to do with the voter intimidation thing. and i am always in the corner of getting the facts first

Re: For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;713520]Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?
[/quote]
I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.


[quote]
We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.
[/quote]
A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic]Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
[quote]The Roman Republic was the phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterised by a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, c. 509 BC, and lasted 482 years until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Principate form of government and the Imperial period.

The Roman Republic was governed by a complex constitution, which centred on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the aristocracy (the patricians), and other Romans who were not from famous families, the plebeians. Early in its history, the republic was controlled by an aristocracy of individuals who could trace their ancestry back to the early history of the kingdom. Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and [B]the result was the emergence of a new aristocracy which depended on the structure of society[/B], rather than the law, to maintain its dominance.[/quote] I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example.
[quote]
My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.
[/quote]
Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it. And more important, and what you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

[quote]
Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.
[/quote]
I have and always will be paranoid :(, but as they say, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean someone's not looking at me.
I agree that at this moment in time freedom of speech is well guarded, but it also is something that can disappear fairly quickly if a gov't that has big guns decides it doesn't like it.

[quote]
Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political will to cut [I]something[/I]. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.[/quote]
Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.