dk--you sound like an anarchist, of the black block sort, who imagines actions are ends in themselves. so that it almost doesn't matter what the action's organized around, only that it happens--and that there's a kind of political consciousness which follows from a simple confrontation with the Man.

maybe i'm wrong, but i think that radical political action follows in part from having clear objectives, but also from changing how people experience their worlds, themselves in the world, etc. so i think through a basically different conception of what information is than i suspect you do (based on our interactions here at least)...

when you write, it seems like you want to go back to some earlier, better time. i think there's nowhere to go but forward.

btw i'm actually pretty sympathetic to direct democracy, and it's probably because i am sympathetic to it that i don't see anything in a "power to the people" type slogan, particularly not in 2009. i think there's something maybe revolutionary in the idea, but not if you frame is as a return to some pre-capitalist version of what already is. this is probably a function of political background as much as anything else. i come out of a heavily marxist orientation, but one that sees marxism itself as entirely outmoded.

just so you know.

and my point is proven true, that out of the mainstream ideas and statements are portrayed as extremist or radical.


Our nations history clearly indicates that as the years have gone by, we've lost more and more freedom, so I have always failed to see how you postulate that moving forward is the only form of progression.

there are flows and there is what we call time that is our form and they all only go in one direction.
it's simply the way it is.

I disagree. As human beings, we can change the direction of not just our lives but those who are around us.

A drug addict does not have to die from the use but if he only goes in that one direction he will. If he makes conscience effort and changes his direction he can live a fulfilled life.

Our country is the same way, we can sit and be docile and say "that's just the way things are" or we can start demanding change.

The "Tea Parties" may not be big, but they may awaken more people who decide to do something and they participate in demonstrations the next time and that awakens more people and so on.

The Civil Rights Movement did not just happen over night, the Vietnam demonstrations did not just happen over night, the ERA movement did not just happen over night. Nothing just happens over night... change true change takes time, it starts with a few voices that awaken a few more that awaken a few more, until enough people have tested the waters and the rest see it's ok and jump in.

This is America, try as the government may and the media wants us to believe it is foolish and we who speak out are freaks and fringe people... America has not yet had it's Tienanmen Square. Hopefully, we never will... however, it may take that to truly awaken people.

When we become a nation more scared of government than government scared of the people..... we need change because that is not what these United States is supposed to be not should it ever be.

Our founding fathers believed this and risked everything to fight for a government scared of the people and thus would do the right thing. We today sit losing everything scared of what government may do to us, of what our neighbors may think of us and scared that it is just "me" feeling this way and no one else does, at least not "normal people" the media and government tell me that.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE. OPENNESS IN GOVERNMENT. DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

As I understand it, there are 300 scheduled 'tea parties' across the nation. All on a single day. will there be more?

I know every major city and county seat in Ohio has one going the 15th.

now for something to be that structured, well planned and set up with many looking forward to going, many wanting to but missing because of work and many many more probably wanting to but are scared or feel they may not have anything to add...... that's a sign there's some very dissatisfied people in this country.

Maybe the government should um....... take the time to start listening? Just an insane observation from an insane person.

pan---that there's something deeply fucked up seems to me to be entirely the case. that there's every reason to be alarmed, be upset...we agree on that. where we don't agree is on the cluster of issues you pile around the tea party things, whether they're the problems or if they're symptoms of deeper problems, whether objecting to taxation makes sense and so forth. there's simply disagreement about the particular political choices you've made. disagreement does not entail more than that--you disagree with me, i disagree with you--you will probably go to a tea party, i will probably do something else.

that's really all that's happening here, yes?

True for you and I.... but for some as demonstrated here they believe that the Right controls it or that it's some agenda other than what it is, etc. There are some who want the people to believe that the tea parties are nothing more than show and no one is serious and that they will be attended by few and those will just be sheep led by some Neo Conservative talk show host or extremists trying to just get attention. That is probably how the media and the government will write it off too.

The point is, at least people are working together to demonstrate there are problems and government needs to be more accountable for those problems and these parties will awaken more people to speak out.

Rachel Maddow had a hilarious story about this.

Nope, Fox has nothing to do with these tea parties. Not at all.

Firedoglake What Part of “FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES” Don’t You Understand?

And some more...

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/t...s-strange_brew
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-tea.html?reds

There's plenty to be upset about with our government. Geithner is, so far, a failure. But these tea parties are ridiculous.

A few years ago the right would call anyone who questioned the government an unamerican terrorist sympathizer. They they are are pushing this... Sometimes I wonder if they realize how big of hypocrites they are.

Yep, Astroturf. Grass roots go the other way.

Seriously people bitching because their tax rate went down... unless they're making other 1/4 mill a year. Wonder how many of these people make that kind of money? I mean other then the guys at Fox News pushing this crap.

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 AM ----------

It's never ok to second guess the POTUS during a time of war... unless of course he's a democrat. Then, well, then it's ok to question everything including his ancestry.

Don't forget his religious affiliations and what fabric he's made of!

Seriously, people. Fox News is shilling these things, and you honestly think they're pure non-partisan political discourse? Come the fuck ON.

These aren't Tea Parties. They're Tea Tantrums. They're being thrown to commemorate the death throes of the American right. They're being sold by some of the same people who were screaming for impeachment on January 21st.

anyone see some of the videos from some of these tea parties?

Apparently, Obama is a pawn of George Soros and the communists, and part of the solution is to burn all the books who teach all that crap of evolution.

Nothing too surprising given that Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck, the Constitution Party, and the John Birch society are some of the major sponsors...

By the way, has anyone figured out exactly against what these parties are protesting?

i think this sums it up.

Half-breed Muslin... that just classic! Morons.

some guy called me last night...

"America! We'll not... blah blah blah, April 15, blah blah Tea Party...blah blah." And then hung up.

I was thinking to myself, how random and what a kind of crank call, no identification, not real explanation, I thought people stopped doing that when they were like 12.

Yeah, I got that same call the other day. I started to mount a decent argument, but the dude hung up. At least when I get calls from California Republicans, they can actually debate.

That wasn't a crank call. It was probably a robodialer. If that doesn't prove that these tea parties aren't grassroots, I don't know what could. Those phone calls are fairly expensive, and I guarantee you that they're not being sent to everyone (that would be REALLY expensive). Instead, they're being sent to targeted voters... except doing the targeting is expensive too.

This only drives the point home that John Stewart made: they're confusing tyranny with losing. Apparently the people behind these tea parties just can't accept that they lost and the election is over, because it seems they're now using standard campaign tactics to promote these things.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

So were these real live people? That's a little less expensive than a pre-recorded message, but there's no way in hell they have enough volunteers for two TFPers in two different markets to both get one of these calls. That means they're probably paying people to fill call centers. And they still have to pay for the phone lines, the targeting, etc.

Yes, it was a real life person. His tone got pissed when I interrupted to start a discussion.

Meanwhile, a lot of libertarians are getting really pissed about what's going on, because it turns out the things have nothing to do with ideology:
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

They have also grown for people to show their disapproval of ALL government officials and the direction of this country.

I find it funny tho, people could talk about how Preston Bush was a Nazi sympathizer, not to mention the affiliation with Skull and Crossbones and how W was a puppet to the NWO and a drunk and blah blah blah, Joe Kennedy was a prohibition Irish gangster that got Sam Momo Giancana to rig the West Virginia Dem. primary and Chicago to get his son elected, Billy Carter's drinking, anything Reagan did, the hate speak on Clinton, Nixon, the innuendos made about LBJ and so on.

And yet NOONE can say anything about the perfect one, the one who will lead us into a new better world without being attacked. Look at the thread on warrantless wiretaps.... "I disapprove but Obama will change that.... Obama good." That's what the bush people said and they were crucified for that view by the same people saying "Well maybe Obama knows something now."

Obama closed Gitmo then opens a prison in Afghanistan, where there are no laws and it is next to impossible for the press to report what goes on there. But we'll keep that quiet and no outrage there the One knows what he's doing unlike Bush.

It's hypocritical bullshit.

As is the whole argument against people having tea parties. You want to downplay them and make them appear what you want them to be so you can keep blindly following the same path only with a new boss.. a better boss... but as the deficit rises, he doesn't truly change anything just picks up from where Bush left off... I wonder why he is considered "better".

Tea parties are not for partisans, they are for people to express their distaste with ALL government. They have grown bigger than Faux, Beck, Limbaugh and the far right. But keep your head in the sand or clouds and keep believing it's all about Obama. This country is pissed, Obama is not doing ANYTHING to truly help or change things except raising taxes, increasing the deficit, forcing companies to follow his will and in these troubling times, while he goes on camera and laughs about it.... causing the liberal interviewer to ask if he was punch drunk.

We are in serious trouble, when we cannot question government and our leaders, when we are spending beyond our means to make up for past mistakes and debt, when our leaders lie to us and have the ability to wiretap us without warrant, move prisons and so on.

Yeah, probably a paid caller.

I linked that in post #110 ;) I'm not sure I'd call Andrew Sullivan a Libertarian really, and he's not upset because the tea parties aren't ideological, he's annoyed because they're just stupid. They're protests for the sake of protesting with very little thought given to what should be done instead (unless you count "burn books"... that was a good one). Worse yet, they're a tool for Cato Institute loyalists to pull the puppet strings on people who know they should feel upset about what's going on, but need someone to tell them where to direct that anger.

Oops, don't know how I missed that. Well people can read it twice because it's a good overview.

Like I said, Cato Institute loyalists.

Actually, no, a lot of that other stuff is bullshit too, which only conspiratorial idiots bother to talk about. The stuff about Joe Kennedy has a certain validity - the results of that election were rather suspect. Reagan did a lot of shitty things, and criticizing his presidency is totally different than trying to draw links to presidents and secret societies. Clinton did some shitty things too, such as turning his back on the gay community with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and he deserves criticism for that and other things. But not for a blow job. Nixon was, in fact, a crook, so I'm not sure why anyone with sense would have a problem with pointing that out.

You should really work on your reading comprehension, because a lot of people criticizing Obama in that thread were - and still are - supporters of his. I'll add another voice to the mix: I voted for Obama, supported him during the election, and still support him as president, but you're imagining a sense of worship that doesn't exist. I think his administration's stance on wiretappings has, so far, been reprehensible, and I think appointing an insider like Geithner was a colossal mistake when there were better options like Paul Krugman or Richard Reich.

Haven't heard about this and would need more information, but again I have no problem criticizing it if it's true. And I haven't seen anyone here who supports Obama that feels otherwise. I really wonder what site you're reading if you see that kind of worship, because it certainly isn't the same one I am.

I don't take them seriously because they haven't been proven to deserve it. They're funded and assisted by FreedomWorks and used as a tool to promote their agenda. They make no real proposals, much like the ridiculous recent Republican budget proposal which had almost no detail, and attract psychotic ignoramuses who want to "burn all the [brainwashing] books" and who believe George Soros is secretly running the government. It's so ridiculous that even conservative blogs who can't stand Obama are becoming uncomfortable with the whole fiasco.

No amount of screaming that tea parties are non-partisan will make it so. When they're funded by conservative political organizations with board members who share ties to the Cato Institute, and when Glenn Beck hosts fundraisers for them, and when, notice, the only people promoting them or taking them seriously are far-right conservative news reporters... they're very clearly partisan. This is indicated enough in your own comments, where you spread the same propaganda that Obama is raising taxes, despite the fact that he actually proposes to lower taxes for over 90% of Americans. Do you make more than $250k/year? No? Then stop complaining about raised taxes, because they have nothing to do with you. I don't agree with everything the Obama administration has done to deal with the economy, but if you're going to disagree at least base the disagreement on reality. Geithner sucks ass, but deficit spending is unfortunately necessary right now, and just about the only economists who you're going to find who disagree are the handful that associate themselves with organizations like the Cato Institute. Economists from the left all the way to the right agree that we need deficit spending to stimulate the economy. There's plenty of disagreement over details, but the need remains.

Oh I don't question the right of people to hold these tea parties, I just wish they'd use their brains about it. Just because something sounds good - "lower taxes! no deficit spending!" - doesn't mean it is good (not to mention, again, that 90+% of Americans ARE getting lower taxes). Kind of reminds me of the Texas Board of Education guy: "I disagree with these experts. Someone has got to stand up to experts." That's what these tea parties are. Spending beyond our means is bad too...and it's what got us into this mess. Unfortunately right now we've dug ourselves into a hole the ground above us is crumbling in. We need to keep digging but in a different direction if we have any hope of getting out. The rest? For fuck's sake, do you honestly think anyone who supports or supported Obama is OK with illegal wiretaps or secret prisons? Stop conflating the issues, because you're starting to debate with imaginary people who aren't here.

pan, surveys indicate that your view is decidedly the minority view, and IS in line with the Fox News view, and IS the view that lost the election bigtime (and yes, I know it's not the way you voted, but it's still the view you're spouting). So please don't presume that you know how This Country Feels, nkay? You don't. At best, that's a projection of your own disaffectation.

Also, I don't know what warrantless wiretapping thread YOU read, but pretty much that thread consisted of you and a few other people saying "I told you so", and all of the rest of us agreeing that it's pretty troubling. I'm SO FUCKING SICK of being told that I worship Obama, or that anyone does. Thinking that is a handy right-wing shortcut, and I generally think you're smarter than that, pan.

Who said anything about that?

I just wonder exactly what you are questioning, though.

Every video, every fundraiser, every promoter Ive seen so far from these "tea parties" is from the far-far-right, and the only thing they are protesting is that they are not in power anymore.

the right knows exactly what has happened to them. it's exactly the kind of ideological collapse that they imagined would accompany the american invasion of iraq and it was supposed to happen because america in 2003 was just that great, so it explains how it was that the invasion of iraq made sense and was in a sense the objective and strategic center of the war. so they know exactly what has happened. the right just can't get it's collective head around the fact that they did it to themselves and that they did it simply by exercising power. because the other thing that neo-con thinking assumes is that the existing order is somehow legit normatively, so that there's a basis for gauging when a regime slips into authoritarian rule. so they know exactly what happened, it's just that they realized perhaps a bit late in the game that they are in fact once in power the kind of regime that their thinking is built around opposing.

all of this is a great big problem.

but things would kinda make sense again if this whole pulverization of an ideology because it ended up having to do what a coherent reformist ideology is ultimately supposed to enable, which is the exercise of state power, so the ability to undertake coherent actions and formulate coherent policies in fact turned out to be the result of the actions of some malicious Outside Force. because if anything like that were true, then you'd still have, you know, an ideology. a worldview.

so to preserve an ideology you need an explanation for your waterloo that does not in its story foreground the fact that it was the people in power exercising this ideology that through their actions and through the thinking that informed them pulverized the ideology that they enacted, but instead located a Malign Outside Force, something shifty that doesn't stay in place, something that damn it you just can't trust, which only makes sense if the neoconservative understanding of nationalism is entirely normative, you know, abstract and all ethical-like, so that it could be a check on regimes that slid toward, say, authoritarianism in the sense that it's a normative grid relative to which sliding off can be seen dammit lookit what's happening there mildred, it's time for a revolution.

so what remains the same is equated with what is ethical and what adapts is what is evil.

so this type of collective psychological problem of having watched as their own worldview ate itself through actually having power gets worked out this way. and to clinch it, it's good to have people be able to go look at each other, every theory of general strike talks about the importance of the public assembly, which really is about people looking at each other ok so you're doing this too. builds morale. i know, let's have a tea party.

In response to "the ultra right is the only news covering this as serious." Right. Maybe because NBC, CBS, ABC, Time, and so on all catered to him and worked hard to help him get elected.

If I still gambled, I would bet a year's pay if Michael Moore, Oprah and so on were to get behind something similar to demonstrate the abuses of power and the total lack of respect for the people, the very news agencies that are downplaying this would be heavily in support.

The nice thing about no television and getting news from USA Today, the Plain Dealer, Columbus Dispatch, Akron Beacon Journal, online such as Yahoo, magazines such as Newsweek (time is fucked up and biased beyond belief), gaging people I work with, go to 12 step meetings with, friends who are liberal and conservative.... I feel I can make far better informed views than when I watched television news and read newspapers alone.

I am able to see both sides much clearer these days. And here's the secret.... BOTH SIDES ARE FUCKED UP AND PLAYED AS PUPPETS. If the Right does something, the left finds reasons to criticize and belittle EVERYONE participating ..... and the right does the same thing to Left.

Tea parties aren't perfect but they are a start. And yes, they can go 2 ways... become GOP propaganda or be helpful and get people to truly throw partisanship out and take back control.

This country is controlled right now by puppet masters who play Left vs. Right games. That way, people are too busy fighting over bullshit OR they tune out because they believe they don't have a voice and have come to the belief their voice doesn't matter.

Tea Parties may have a chance to give those people voices. If people see that others are speaking out and throwing partisanship away and fighting to regain the government then they may join.

So keep saying it's partisan and that it's a Right thing and believe what you want... I believe until PROVEN wrong that these stand a chance at opening the gates for true change and people to make government more open and scared of the people..... not keep people scared of government like it is now and the press loves it because it sells, the puppet masters love it because they stay in control.... and the radicals on both sides like it because they feel they are a part of something.

It may be an uphill battle for people who aren't partisan and want to hold government accountable to the people.... but again I stress this is the start, because in the end, I truly believe there will be more non partisans and people just wanting government accountable than there will be puppets for the left and right.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE...... it only sounds scary and/or ridiculous if you are a puppet and brainwashed to believe that AND/OR you are more scared of government being answerable and responsible to the people not the puppet masters and the political agendas they sell the partisans.


Ask yourself which one of the 3 do you fall into? And why? May learn something about yourself and wake up to the reality of who truly is in control in this country. It should be WE the PEOPLE and it ain't. WE the PEOPLE right now are more scared of the government (and giving them more power) than they are of us.

Pan, why in the world do you trust these? They're being backed by Fox News, officially. I've accepted that you're a fiscal conservative, but you're not a Fox News person at all. Is Fox News "power to the people"? Or is it more insane, out of control partisanship? I'd be willing to bet you agree with me that it's the latter. Fox News is the embodiment of the worst part of the far right wing, and they're directly involved in organizing Tea Parties.

I'll tell you what, on Wednesday I'll head over to Cesar Chavez Plaza to take a look for myself. It's within walking distance of where I work. I can bring back first hand knowledge. I'm even advising my friends and colleagues against going to the counter-demonstration.

so the two options are going to a tea party or being against the government being accountable?

And brainwashed?

Let's see the official sponsors of the tea party in my area:
smart girls politics: a conservative women's movement
Top Conservatives on Twitter
a few websites created by "republic modern media," which include "hip hop republican," "mccain now," and other GOP sites
americansforprosperity.org, which is basically an ultra conservative org. that is currently trying to help block the EFCA that in another thread you said you supported
and freedom works, which is chaired by Dick Armey, former GOP house leader...

The main website is sponsored by gopusa.com

non-partisan alright...

I didn't say I trusted them.... I stated time after time they are a start.

I'm not surprised at the extreme short sightedness of most Obama supporters concerning this 'protest'. I'm also not surprised at the vitriol displayed by some of the more ardent liberals here. What I am surprised about though, is the blatant ignorance being displayed by those on the left with the declarations that all of these 'tea parties' are nothing more than a partisan display of the right wing cabal.

Any group can start a protest with a general theme, but what makes it noticeable is the other groups and concerns that the initial group attracts. Do people on here really think that the only people going to these protests are nothing more than racist Obama haters? You have people from all walks of life coming to these with their own concerns over the monstrous bloom of government, the extraordinary and overly frivolous spending, the continuation of policies from the Bush administration that some of those participating protested against back then as well, and the obvious about faces concerning campaign promises by Barack Obama in regards to administration pursuits....all in the name of the American people.

With every single day of the near total mismanagement at Treasury, people are getting extremely upset. More jobs are being lost, yet they hear from the government how the economy is getting to turn around because the market is ticking upwards. These main street people who are losing jobs don't have an investment in the market, therefore their economy is not getting better. They want the administration to see that this is not getting better. They want the administration to know that it is handling the economic crisis in ways that have failed in the past. They want the administration to know that they are getting ready to draw the line.

People voted for change and they are not seeing the change and hope that was promised to them.

To dismiss the concerns of so many Americans that are outside of that 'right wing cabal' is going to hurt the democratic party in the coming elections.

oh really? I don't remember huge, grassroots protests by fiscal conservatives during Bush's presidency. care to link me up with some news stories about them?

well, this is an interesting little loop.

when you say, "total mismanagement of the treasury"---you mean that in relation to what?

Also... the assertions that "people are getting extremely upset", and "America is mad at what its government is doing" is ENTIRELY not borne out by polling data. Quite the opposite in fact. Fox News, on the other hand, IS extremely upset, and they're perfectly happy to tell us what we really think...

You may not have 'said' you trusted them, but your posts in this thread seem to say otherwise, when you're as supportive of these 'tea parties' as you seem to be, I reckon actually saying you trust them isn't really an issue. Considering you haven't said anything bad about them, I reckon you trust them just from reading your posts.
So because you think you see both sides clearer these days, you're automatically right? Or that what you see as clearer is the right opinion? Also you just figured out that both sides are fucked up? Seriously, you just figured this out? That's the worst kept fuckin in NATO pan, and I can't believe you didn't figure this out sooner in your life. Kind of funny that you didn't, you seem to think it was a state secret..........pan here's another one for you..........don't tell anyone..........politicians lie to get what they want...shhhhhh keep it to yourself......

You know, I've said this a couple times on this thread, but it keeps happening.

Why isn't it enough to say "I think X"? Why does it have to be "I think X, and so does the rest of everybody"?

Conservatives (including economic conservatives) just can't fucking HANDLE being the minority, can they?

I think the government is too big and spends too much. I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one that belives this, except pan maybe. I have no clue what the other hundreds of thousands of people who are going to be attending these tea party protests are really protesting, except maybe they really think that tea tax is too high now.

hows that? :rolleyes:

Honest, at least. I appreciate it.

We can have an honest disagreement. There's integrity to that. But to say "no, my opinion is the majority and we're Right and we're the Real Americans"--especially when the data AND the election results say the opposite--is just dishonest.

In the spirit of honest disagreement, my question for you, based on what you said above is: where were your tea parties when government was spending too much on military adventurism in Iraq? Is it only spending too much to restart the economy that is a problem for you?

No, I think the government spends too much money also. I'll add to that, I don't think that social services should be handled by the government for the long haul, non-government community based organizations can do that and do it better than the government.
No. I think that the wars were too expensive also.

They're not necessarily a start to anything positive, though. If, as has been reported, they are whine sessions for people angry to find themselves in the minority, you won't see constructive use of what could have been, as you say, "a start". They may even be a start of something quite bad if they further galvanize the extreme right.
I think the government spends too much and doesn't tax enough. The federal and state governments should always be a careful balancing act between reasonable surplus when there's nothing cataclysmic going on and slight deficit when things have gone to hell. The problem is that, regardless of political ideology, when people actually get into a position to do something about this they find that raising taxes and reducing spending is political suicide. Bush was, before becoming president, a conservative. He believed in small government, as insane as that sounds now.
http://joejolly.files.wordpress.com/...ar-record1.gif
Conservative politicians don't believe in small government at all, just their constituents, and I'm pretty sure it's only a few of those constituents that really, honestly understand what smaller government would mean.

I'd believe that if I watched Fox News.... but I don't. My opinion as stated above is formulated by what I believe and the people I talk to. I'm pissed off that the government doesn't listen to the people.

I'm pissed off that a president had the audacity and the ego to laugh about the economic crisis on television.

I'm pissed off that instead of working with some companies and finding ways to truly help them long term he throws money at them and then dictates to them how to run their companies. Then other companies he throws money at, allows them huge assed bonuses and then acts pissed only when those bonuses are leaked and the people demand something be done.

I'm pissed off that my wife and I, both work 40 hours a week with respectable jobs and instead of being able to live a decent life, I have to worry paycheck to paycheck if we are going to make it.

I'm pissed because we work 40 hours a week, and when I try to get financial aid to finish school, there isn't any there for me because we make too much, but don't make enough to handle that extra bill.

I'm pissed because the government is no longer answerable to the people. The government doesn't fear the people, the people fear government (unless your political party is in power). If you speak out, the side in power belittles you, tells you how you are brainwashed and ignorant and how they are so much more intelligent.... and yet they are nothing more than fucking sheep following the same pattern as the party in power before them.

I am pissed that the media and puppet masters keep the people at each other's throats and poo-poo away anything that goes against their agendas that might, just might awaken people and get balance between the people and government again.

I am pissed that people who were demanding W's job for warrantless wiretaps, are saying.....

Where's the outrage? Where's the trampling our rights? Where's the call for impeachment?

I guess that's held only for W.

Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, anyone hear of it? Tell me how it's all Bush and Obama doesn't have anything to do with it opening 40 more acres of prison in September..... where's your outrage?

I'm pissed because people have preconcieved notions from the liberal biased, Obama loving, can do no wrong press that these tea parties will only be attended by GOP sheep and it is more laughable than purposeful. YOU ARE FOLLOWERS, told what to believe and if something goes against that you ridicule it and dismiss it. So.... um what seperates you from those who followed Bush as vehemently? OOOO yeah that was Bush THIS IS OBAMA THE SAVIOR..... give me a fucking break they are one in the same and you are too blinded to see it.

I could go on, but for those I make sense to they have their own lists why they are pissed and may attend the Tea Parties or at least see with open mind what happens. Those drinking the yellow Obama piss and pretending it's lemon Kool Aid (and 4 years ago when I said that about W followers the lefties loved it this time they will consider it a personal attack) will poo-poo, decry and tell everyone who attended the REAL REASON they were at those tea parties.... why the press told them the REAL REASON and why question the press. They know far more than any peon.

Zeig Heil Obama. (ooo I better not say that.... that's wrong to attack Obama, the way I did Bush.)

I don't believe anyone ever said the majority of americans were participating in these protests, nor did a majority have those ideological mindsets. To imply otherwise could be just as dishonest.

As to what did I do about the overspending in Iraq? I wrote and emailed both my us senators and my us congressman about every other month and when Bush made more calls for more money. I'm in TX though, so we can figure out how far that got me.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

ok will, since rb posited the point that it's dishonest to speak for majorities and their viewpoints, i'll have to ask you to more specifically address the statement of how few of those constituents and what is their understanding about what a smaller government would mean.

Wait...before we go off on our own respective moral outrages, aren't these tea parties merely tax "revolts"?

You're imagining things, Pan. We're all pissed.

Ask yourself this: when did calls for impeachment begin for Bush? After all the vacations? Nope. 9/11? Nope. Invasion of Afghanistan? Nope. Invasion of Iraq? Yes, that was about when it started, though most of the calls were from outside the US. They really didn't hit a fever pitch until illegal kidnappings, torture, wiretapping, and starting to head in the direction of attacking Iran after falsifying information that they were after nuclear material. That's a shit-ton of bad things it took. Obama's list so far is really one the one thing, the wiretapping. And we're absolutely pissed, yes, but it's not even in the same solar system as Bush yet. Obama issued the order to close Guantanamo and is in the process of removing our troops from Iraq, so he's not all bad yet. Things aren't as black and white now as they were with Bush. Bush couldn't make a correct decision to save his life, whereas Obama has already made some difficult and correct decisions. That doesn't mean he's a messiah or savior, just that he's not a total fuck-up like Bush.

Learn to see shades of gray or you'll go mad.

I didn't say that. I said it's dishonest for the minority to speak as if it speaks for the majority.

Sit down with maybe a dozen of your closest, conservative friends and ask them to hash out what the US would look like if we only had private schools, only had private roads, only had private fire and police protection, only had private science and art, only had to trust food and drug manufacturers to self-regulate when it came to quality, only had maybe 1 or 2 mega corporations from which to get any kind of news and information, only had as much internet as our providers want us to have, etc.

Small government sounds good when you think the government only ever fucks up, but the truth is that most things fuck up, be they public or private. I can't even begin to list the unbelievable market failures in the history of our country, let alone the history of mankind. And bigger still, I can't even begin to describe what could have happened in the US had it not been for government looking out for people.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------

I think you're getting the recent tea parties mixed up with the original, which was about taxation without representation. These new ones are about a plethora of things that the right are simply mad about.

Yeah, the spending of tax dollars, right? Isn't this about spending programs that they don't agree with (aka that won't benefit them directly)?

(I'm trying to learn more about this as I go along.)

wouldn't one person speaking for a group of people be considered a minority speaking for the majority?

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

There is one huge gaping flaw in your theory though. When 'people' screw something up, they have to suffer the consequences. When government screws up, we have to suffer the consequences. In our naivete of 'trusting' the government, we've let them build in their own protections and safeguards from any repercussions or consequences of their screw ups, but someone has to pay a consequence when they make financial errors. It's certainly not them. Small governments have less chance to screw things up. Large bulky beauracracies have way too many points of failure that you and I will have to suffer from.

The taxes and where the money goes without representation and the people's voice are the icing.

I have said all along Obama inherited a mess starting some 25 years ago with failed trickle down economic policies. But he's doing the exact same thing that has failed us. Give tax money to the ultra rich and fuck the middle class.

If you are rich, you are making a lot more in this market because you can invest in real estate and the markets.

If you are poor, the government is making sure you are taken care of.

If you are middle class, fuck you taxes will increase, fuck your rights we'll tax beyond your means anything we believe is wrong for you, fuck any help because if you WORK hard and make more than $30,000 in your family (unless you have kids) you don't deserve or get anything. Financial aid for school? Go fuck yourself. Heating aid because natural gas is getting a tad expensive? Go fuck yourself. A voice on where your tax money goes? Go fuck yourself. The right to speak out against the wrongs in government? You poor deluded child... go fuck yourself, you can have the right but we'll get the press to tell everyone how you are a brainwashed neo con who's pissed your party isn't in power... so truly go fuck yourself because you have no voice. And if you speak out too much we'll just squeeze until you are silenced.

The government is the people. We vote in representatives, and government workers represent a large percentage of the population, larger than any industry as far as I know.

How is the bulky bureaucracy of a multinational corporation any different than the bureaucracy of a large government? The latter doesn't have a singular goal of profit. It's function is governing. It's that need for profit that I don't trust to look out for me. They want to screw me. I've been in that position before at my last job, and it's the function of a company to make as much money as possible off their consumers without them cluing in to the fact that they are being screwed. You demonstrate how your competition screws them a little bit more and have friendly people on the phone to earn their return business, but at the end of the day you want a profit margin as close to the breaking point as possible. If you don't believe me, look at every business ever.

---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

A lot of my understanding is coming from reading blogs, so I can't really tell you with 100% certainty until Wednesday when I actually visit one of these things. I can tell you with reasonable certainty this is about more than just spending. It's about myriad things. There are reports of calls for book burning, there are reports of people spreading conspiracies about FEMA prisons, there's a lot of racism, and a lot more. They're Palin rallies without Palin.

I'll write up a complete report and hopefully get some video on Wednesday evening.

It's interesting that this is so hard to communicate to you.

What I mean is, a minority viewpoint, expressed as if just everyone agrees with it, is being expressed by a liar.

And okay, it's a fine line between lying and being misinformed and wishful thinking. I grant you all that.

this makes more sense, but was that position put forth by anyone here?

Isn't that also what government is supposed to have as well? It's not called profit, but it's being able to have enough liquid cash in order not only have the cashflow to support the budget, but also for those infrastructure repairs, forward looking projects such as new roads/bridges...

It's jut not called profit.

The taxes and where the money goes without representation and the people's voice are the icing.

I have said all along Obama inherited a mess starting some 25 years ago with failed trickle down economic policies. But he's doing the exact same thing that has failed us. Give tax money to the ultra rich and fuck the middle class.

If you are rich, you are making a lot more in this market because you can invest in real estate and the markets.

If you are poor, the government is making sure you are taken care of.

If you are middle class, fuck you taxes will increase, fuck your rights we'll tax beyond your means anything we believe is wrong for you, fuck any help because if you WORK hard and make more than $30,000 in your family (unless you have kids) you don't deserve or get anything. Financial aid for school? Go fuck yourself. Heating aid because natural gas is getting a tad expensive? Go fuck yourself. A voice on where your tax money goes? Go fuck yourself. The right to speak out against the wrongs in government? You poor deluded child... go fuck yourself, you can have the right but we'll get the press to tell everyone how you are a brainwashed neo con who's pissed your party isn't in power... so truly go fuck yourself because you have no voice. And if you speak out too much we'll just squeeze until you are silenced.

I'm honestly not sure what would make you happy pan, short of a direct democracy, which would be an absolute disaster.

The people - that group you're so fond of claiming to be the champion of - voted in this administration, and while it hasn't been perfect - the wiretaps and situation at Bagram are good examples - many of your economic complaints have to do with the administration doing pretty much exactly what it said it would do. And the data back that up, showing that most people - you know, THE PEOPLE - generally support what the administration is doing. Be upset, disagree, but don't claim to be a champion of the people or to be upset that the government isn't listening to the people when THE PEOPLE are not telling it to do much different than what it is doing now.

That's not even getting into some of your other complaints which are just plain false.I don't know how many times it can be said: unless you make $250k+/year, your taxes are going down. In some cases quite significantly. I'm sorry that your life is proving challenging, but you can't expect the government to make everything perfect for you. You're letting your own personal frustrations about life cloud your ability to see clearly here. There's plenty to be upset about, but to act like the government is screwing you over while giving you one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history, just because you can't get your federal student aid... that's not clear thinking.

I can understand - but disagree - with dksuddeth here, because his complaints amount to disagreeing with this administration's policies in a broad sense. What you keep on demanding is a voice, saying that the government isn't listening to you, but it is listening to you in exactly the manner it was designed to and has always listened to you. You, and many others like you, went to the polls and voted, and put representatives in government to make decisions on your behalf. Now, as they're making decisions, public polling shows that people still generally agree with what they're doing. Disagree with those decisions, but don't act like the government isn't listening to you because you don't get a personal phone call from each of your representatives and your president before they decide where to spend your relatively minuscule portion of the total tax income. And realize that while you may disagree about that spending, and have every right to disagree and voice that disagreement, don't act like the government isn't listening to the general will of the people by doing something you disagree with. Don't claim that because most people you know agree with you the government must be ignoring the will of the people. You're smarter than to fall into that self-selective trap. The fact is, most Americans generally support the actions of this administration so far when it comes to the economy, and you do not represent THE PEOPLE, because THE PEOPLE are being listened to by their government. THE PEOPLE, and their government, just happen to disagree with you. Welcome to representative democracy.

So complain all you want. It's always good to have dissenting voices. And if you want to try and turn the tea parties into gatherings about illegal wiretapping and unlawful detention at Bagram Air Force base, please do. If you succeed, I'd be happy to join you at one. But right now, that's not what these things are. Just because there are some people who would like them to be does not make it so. And just because you're not getting what you want from your government when it comes to the economy does not mean that most Americans - THE PEOPLE - are not. And just because your fellow Ohioans are not getting what they want from their government when it comes to the economy does not mean that most Americans - THE PEOPLE in those other 49 states - are not. So don't confuse what you and your friends want with THE PEOPLE, because it's downright insulting to boldly claim that the government isn't listening to THE PEOPLE because it's not listening to YOU. Get beyond that, and there are much more productive discussions to be had.

But the best part..... the government gives the banks billions upon billions and what do the banks do???????? Raise credit card fees and interest rates. Make it harder for people to get loans and continue to foreclose... hey, it's business. Abusiness bailed out with OUR taxes.

And we'll not get into how banks that were more financially stable than others and did not take TARP money were bought out with federal approval and force by those who had taken TARP money. (PNC's buyout of National City) Kucinich tried to step in, Voinivich tried to, Brown tried to all tried to stop it, demanded hearings and investigations and were told to shut up and sit down.

But you're right SM that is just all happening in Ohio. Employment is up in every other state. People are having great time enjoying an economic rebound in every other state. The banks only rose credit card interest rates on Ohioans. The banks only are foreclosing and buying out economically sound banks in Ohio.... this isn't a national problem.... how dare I compare what is going on in Ohio to that of the rest of the nation.

And sorry, I don't believe in polls. I listen to my friends, the people I work with, go to meetings with, etc. Polls come out with the results the people paying for the polls want. If Harris doesn't give the data NBC wants, NBC will go to Zogby.... etc. Or they will run thier own polls to get what ever info they want.

Fox I'm sure runs polls that show the Liberal press's polls are all fucked up. And vice versa.... polls don't mean shit unless you rely on them to dictate your views for you or to justify your views.

On a side note: that was weird my previous post appeared in this one twice... I had to edit to delete it.

When I first started working for my previous employer, I was told that if I increased revenue, I'd share in that increase. Sure enough, come the first Christmas, was a shiny bonus. Sure, a lot of the increased profits were channeled into expansion and investing in more goods, but some of that found its way into my pocket and the pocket of several other higher ups. Government doesn't have this step. Clinton didn't get paid more in the mid 90s for balancing the budget. Bush didn't get paid less for running the budget into the ground and then some. The incentive with government is to serve the people whereas the incentive with business is lining one's pockets. This doesn't suggest that government isn't ever greedy, often business (or business-esque) interests do carve out a part of government in order to make money, but the intent of government isn't profitability, it's purely functionality.

you are referring to compensation, not profit for the company or government.

I'm talking about the intent for profit.

Why profit? Government and business will provide different answers to that question.

initially, taxes were assessed and received based on what the government needed to spend for that coming year. forward looking budgets didn't come about until a few years before the 16th Amendment was ratified........I think anyway.

I didn't say only Ohio is having problems, the point is that trusting only people you know leads to a very self-selecting reality.

Case in point: if I used the same logic of who to believe and who not to believe, then clearly Bush stole the 2004 election, because there's no way in hell he should have gotten more than maybe 25% of the vote. Most everyone I knew was shocked he was elected for a second time. But you know what? There's a big country out there, and many different regional cultures, and a lot of those actually did support Bush. Enough to get him over 50% of the vote.

Or we could even use this current economic situation as an example: I never said it's not tough right now, just that most Americans generally support what the administration is trying to do here. Why believe polls when I can just use your logic: the people I know in my personal life and the people I work with have absolutely no interest in your tea parties, nor do they think the Obama administration is working to screw over the everyman while propping up the upper class. Maybe it has to do with knowing and working with people who understand the concept of one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history, I don't know, but the point is I can use your same logic to disprove your point. Not because it's good logic, but because it's no logic at all.

You're right, you shouldn't inherently trust polls, but the good ones don't just give you the results, they tell you the sample details, the questions, and the time frame in which the poll was taken. Believe it or not, it is possible to figure out whether or not a poll is noteworthy, and some actually are!

Anyway, this is getting ridiculous because I actually agree that the economic crisis isn't being handled particularly well. I've already said earlier in this thread that Geithner was a poor pick, and now he's proving himself to be. That has nothing to do with the government not listening to me though. We don't live in a direct democracy, and the government isn't going to have a vote on every spending measure, as much as you may like it to.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

I'm getting WAY off-topic here, but this brings up an interest thought: what if Bush DID get paid less for running the economy into the ground? Personal motivations are not always bad. After all, they always exist, so why not use them to our advantage? Just throwing a thought out there.

It seems like an interesting idea, but I can't think of a time that we've had a president that wasn't already loaded. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford Nixon, Kennedy... none of them exactly needed their government check. Still, it might be nice if a lucky voter got to punch a president in the face every time a soldier dies. We could have a lottery among military friends and family. Call it "negative reinforcement".

Call it what is in the government sector and you'll have your answer and can compare apples to apples. Every organization requires cash flow to survive including personal citizens.

I didn't read this so carefully last go round, but I believe you are quite mistaken. Look around the world and you will not find a single government that is rife with any kind of pay for play or quid pro quo for personal gain.

I'm not talking about sustainability.

Governments need to be sustainable in order to be functional. You should know that seeing you are in California and the CA citizens, industry, and economy cannot sustain the government and it's programs.

So while you may want it to be functional because that is the desire or goal, the reality is that money is a resource that has be be handled and dealt with. NYC was close to bankrupt in 1975, and Ford told NYC to "Drop Dead!" I'd like that to be Obama's response as well.

Local governments need to be able to be sustainable for it to be functional. Anything less is folly. This means that they may require cash reserves in order to cover "rainy" days, thus it is a profit motive. If it wasn't speeding tickets and other "cash cows" would not exist.

This will repeat a point I made earlier:

Let's say these "tea parties" are wildly successful. Let's say Obama and congress essentially say "you win, tell us what to do."

What, then?

And please, no platitudes, no bullshit.

Just a list: x, y, z.

Because it seems to me that the major "point" is to protest taxes. So it seems that the Obama tax cut is not enough, so how much of a tax break would be enough? And what should be cut to offset that?


Any protest without a point is useless. And so far I have not seen anyone say "let's cut X" or "Y" without it being some completely bullshit thing that simply doesnt add up.

If none of these protests say "cut medicare," or "cut SS" or "cut military" they are nothing more than pathetic tantrums. The equivalent of a 2 year old screaming "but I wanna...."

Cut medicare.
Cut SS.
Cut the military budget with a bloody machete.
Stop foreign aid...that means you too, Israel.
Go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb and a scalpel. Anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution gets cut and left to the States or People.
Congressional salaries cut to the national average. Likewise the President's salary and that of any person being paid from the Treasury.
Totally de-fund all unConstitutional or redundant agencies.

That'll do for a start.

THIS!!!!!!!

A libertarian shopping list.

IIRC, Ron Paul, the only libertarian running in 2008, got 14 delegates to McCain's 1,378. As much as I'd prefer libertarians as my respected political adversaries, do we really think this rather large tea party movement is libertarian? It's conservative, sure, but modern conservatism isn't libertarianism. They seem to be taking ques from neoconservative idiots like BillO and Rush and Hannity, the defacto Republican party leaders. None of those men are libertarian by any stretch.

I've recently come to the conclusion that know one really knows what these tea parties are about. I just read a blog that suggested that they were started by a small group of libertarians and were co-opted by an increasing number of movement conservatives.

Okay, so I'm thinking it originally was about taxes and spending. Now I think it's about conservative tantrums.

I guess I'll wait for it to pan out on the next big one: Tax Day (April 15th).

no, but SOME of those ideals are ours as well, and so we will most likely join.

i disagree with all the points made by dunedan except one--dismantling the national security state.
but they are an answer to dippin's question and they are a set of proposals, and you have to grant that...
at the same time, the problem with making concrete proposals is that they can be debated.
this seems to me a pretty reasonable explanation for why it is that there's nothing particularly coherent being advanced through the tea party astroturf movement.


but there's another aspect of this that's kind of alarming. what exactly is the fragments of the conservative movement flirting with here? this seems like an exercise in populist coalition building--the right no longer knows what it's constituency is, so it's willing to hit the ground and see what flies up. in a sense, this is not that different from the nra-sponsored run on guns--a little vignette:

Americans stick to their guns as firearms sales surge | World news | The Guardian



this seems to me a dangerous game, mobilizing people around nothing but anger and paranoia.
i keep thinking about films like face in the crowd.
it ain't pretty.

Libertarians and Bush conservatives are as different as liberals and libertarians, dk. The invasion of Iraq runs completely counter to libertarian ideology, as does wiretapping, torture, fear mongering, executive power grabbing... basically everything Bush ever did. Bush was a big government conservative, a military expansionist conservative, and the only tax breaks we really saw under him went to the super-dooper rich. I never saw them and neither did you.

A libertarian in power in the last 8 years wouldn't have gone expansionist, he or she would have gone xenophobic. Our borders would have been sealed completely, but the spending would have been a pittance compared to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Executive power wouldn't have grown at all, though I suspect there would have been better investigations as to how 9/11 happened and how to prevent it in the future. Taxes would have been cut across the board, along with spending. There's no way torture or wiretapping would have happened, in fact it's likely some of the agencies involved would have been shut down completely as they're what many libertarians consider to be redundant. By 2006 or 2007, there would have been an presidential assassination and a more moderate VP would become president until Obama beats Paul in November of 2008.

No, libertarians and conservatives are quite different.

Yup, I will likely be going to my local tea party work permitting. I'm debating whether or not to CCW during the event, currently I am thinking about not carrying.

That what an anti-tax protest should be about, and yet none of those things are even mentioned in any of the teaparty websites Ive read so far. It hasnt been mentioned by any of the big funders. And a plurality of tea parties in my state are being organized by county level GOP.

I would love for the debate to be about liberalism vs libertarianism, or some variation of the theme. But the tea parties, as currently organized, are nothing more than GOP propaganda machines. Even the libertarians who originally thought of such protests seem to agree with that:

The Liberty Papers Blog Archive Where Was the Republican Outrage Before Obama Was Elected?

The Futility of Protesting | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

SO NOT the Face the Tea Party Needs Temple of Mut

The Liberty Papers Blog Archive On Tea Parties and Republican hypocrisy

Backstabber: Is Rick Santelli High On Koch? -- Freedom Underground
read specially this last one, and how the "chicago tea party" website came to be


I mean, the national organization behind these things is funded by gopusa.com and, the john birch society and Glen Beck fundraisers, partnered with Newt Gingrich's American Solutions, promoted freely by Fox News and with dozens and dozens of republican speakers, and yet people claim it to be non-partisan?

Again, Im all for libertarians organizing and pushing their agenda, but these tea parties are certainly not it, and people going to them blindly will in all likelihood feel quite dissatisfied when they realize the whole thing is really radical wingnuttery.

I will bet real money here with anyone that you will hear more about gay marriage and evolution at these things than about cutting medicare, SS or military spending.

My sense is that with regards to perception at least, the Tea Party phenomenon appears as the mirror image of the Anti-Globalization movement in the 90's.

To be clear, I don't equate the modes of protests themselves (The revivalist rallies of the Tea Parties today vs. the violent battles with riot police of yesterday), only the perception of the movement from the non-participating masses.

At the start, today's movement had some traction because the busting economy was a reality effecting everybody and the numbers being thrown around were staggering. Who wouldn't be apprehensive and wary about the govenment's handling of it all? At this point a protest movement was only natural and totally understandable.

And then, just as the anti-globalization movement became synonomous with violence and anarchy in the streets, the tea party's message has been lost in a din of unfocused, foaming anger.

Is that the fault of the giddy media for only reporting the movement's squeaky wheels? Partly. If you've only got 30 seconds to show, do you interview the quiet guy at the back of the crowd or the chanting roughneck with the misspelled sign in the duck costume? I appreciate the voices here, even if I don't agree on the stakes.

How successful the tea party movement will be depends on the state of the economy and for that, we will have to wait and see.

We pay too much attention to the extreme voices of any movement.

Very few of us were violent, fresnelly, in fact I can say with confidence that the police were nearly always the instigators in those rare instances of violence. Most of it was graffiti, actually. Our reputation was created in the media.

While the Tea Parties may have started as libertarian, they've been commandeered by neoconservatives and Fox News.

Yes, perception here is the key. If the tea baggers want to gain any real momentum, they need to reign in the wingnuts and learn how to bring their substantive issues to the forefront. Getting that quiet guy at the back of the crowd on front pages is a challenge to be sure.

Fresnelly's right. dksuddeth, make a B-line for press when they show up. That goes for you, too, Dunedan. I'd much rather have the libertarians in charge than the Fox News Action Hate Team ™.

I just read the "list of solutions" that was distributed at a recent Tea Party, and while it all sounds great on paper (Cut the corporate tax to 18%, lower middle-class taxes to 15%, cut the death tax, etc.), but none of these "solutions" are accompanied by the corollary spending cuts, reorganization, etc. to keep the cuts from crippling the government

I could agree to those.

I have stated many times that a Rep. and Senator should make the average income of the district/state they represent.... thus they would fight harder for jobs and the people of their district to make more.

I think a strict tariff on imports should be applied and that money should go to the respective industries in this country to develop better and more competitive product. The tariffs would have a time limit and in doing such there would no longer be tax abatements or writeoffs for the companies.

I also believe that ANY company doing business in the US should abide by US employment laws and safety regulations, regardless of country the factory or business is in.

I believe government needs to reduce redundancy, bureaucracy, and red tape for their programs.

I believe if a person works 40 hours a week, they should be able to make a wage they can afford to live on. If a company "outsources" to temp agencies, either the temp agency or the company should pay benefits to those workers.

As for healthcare, I have to disagree with you. I believe that it should be provided for all citizens but on a sliding scale fee. At a certain point, the sliding scale is cut off and private insurance is needed. But no one should ever have to lose everything they worked for because they got sick and couldn't pay the bills.

I believe the federal government's primary purposes are to protect the people and to provide services to help those in need with the condition that that help be for a limited time. No lifetime on welfare. Protecting the people includes watchdogs such as the EPA, FDA, Employment law enforcement, transportation, etc. These are funded by our taxes and only enforce national standards (as some states probably would not abide by those standards). These agencies would be minimal. The FCC would not be needed along with others. The

Education should never be denied any one and all schools/universities and colleges funded by government (state or local) should be forced to help a person regardless of income the ability to attend. If that person flunks out.... and wants to go back, that person then has to wait 5-10 years or pay their way by their own means. States should be forced to enforce this, however, federal should oversee this and make sure states abide by the rules.

I believe that we are not responsible for Illegal immigrants healthcare and well being. If they present to a hospital, the hospital treats them ONLY in life emergencies. If illegals are caught, they are deported immediately from our country at their country's expense. If they commit a crime here they are tried as citizens and face prison here with their country footing the bill. If Mexico wants to tell their people how to get here illegally, then they can pay when we send them back.

Prisons should be prisons, it is not the tax payers responsibility to pay for cable tv and amenities many who have jobs can barely afford. If you commit a crime and are tried and convicted, you should be housed and put to work on a self sustaining prison farm. It should not be the tax payers paying for your crimes. I also believe that public defense lawyers should come from a pool and that no one should ever be denied the best legal representation possible.

I believe government should be accountable to the people and that politicians should face the same laws and punishments the people do.

Finally, I believe Reps should be required to have monthly or at most bi-monthly town hall meetings and spend no less than a week in their district office meeting with those they represent. Senators should be obligated to the same only with a 3 or 6 month time frame to have the town hall and 2 weeks at their office in the state they represent. During those office times, NO LOBBYISTS should be allowed, only constituents.

Laws such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage/rights, drug legalization, etc..... should be given the states and the federal government should have no right to impose any law except in the case of interstate disputes.

I do not believe any of the things I asked for are impossible for government to achieve.

I'm still not sure what you think this will accomplish (outside of you feeling better because your "voice was heard"). If a rep is at his home office for a week, and 50 people come in supporting gay marriage and another 50 people come in opposing it, then regardless of the Rep's decision on the matter, half of the citizens will feel like they're being ignored. My guess is that over time, the face-to-face meetings would line up pretty well with the state polling numbers.

I disagree again. Let's start with abortion; for the sake of argument, let's say that this November, all 50 states placed the question "Should abortion be legal in our state?" on their general ballots, and that the Blue states voted "yes" and the Red states voted "no". In December, a poor, 14 year old girl in San Antonio, TX gets knocked up and wants to get an abortion. Should she have to figure out how to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles just to get to a state where it's legal?

As for gay marriage rights, what if a gay couple get legally married in Massachusetts, but then their company transfers them to Alabama? Does Alabama have to recognize their marriage and the legal rights conferred under the marriage contract?

If you legalize drugs in some states and not others, you better beef up your local and state police forces along state borders, as drug smuggling will become a big time industry.

Seriously. The current state of things is a PRIME platform for a real discussion of libertarianism. I'd MORE than welcome such a nationwide conversation.

Good luck to you all--you don't own a major news network, and rational discussion doesn't make as good a sound-bite as foaming at the mouth does.

They wouldn't be Republicans if they suggested spending cuts to accompany their tax cuts. They'd be something....else....:expressionless:

i think the parallel between the tea parties and early anti-globalization protests--which i assume means seattle---are interesting---problematic is you stick too literally to them---but still, interesting.

both movements operated in situations wherein the old ideologies had been pulverized.
both tried to deal with situations that had outstripped the older ways of thinking and/or acting by asserting continuities.

but

the anarchists were far more coherent about the ways in which these continuities were articulated than is the american right.
partly, this was a function of each being a very different types of organization--the anar actions in seattle were theater directed against the emerging global-capitalist or neoliberal order staged through confrontations with the police, where the right is attempting to stage itself as a new reactionary populist movement through assembling itself in these tea party contexts.

the types of media staging are fundamentally different however: in seattle, all you saw was confrontation and this fed back into both the old reactionary way of not dealing with social protest particular to american television coverage, which decontextualizes what it shows and relies on visual associations to substitute for a coherent account of the politics---so the seattle protest became "extremist" because that's the only viewpoint on them that television allows for through its particular way of decontextualizing political contestation. the only forms of protest that television can handle coherently are forms of protest which are either entirely on the surface of the instants that the camera capture---or a form that is symmetrical with the business model.

so the tea parties are in this respect the inverse of the seattle protests--this are television fabrications to a great extent, cut from whole cloth in the image of fox news' business model.

but it's an interesting parallel to think about.
and there's something perversely interesting about these tea parties as well. i'm thinking about buying a pastel polo shirt and turning up for one. roachboy should be interviewed by some faux news nitwit, dont you think? live feed. i'm all about it.

The biggest problem with your examples is you take everything to the extreme and those extremes are used solely to allow the federal government power. You cannot make laws just because you choose to take what ifs to an extreme.


This allows them time out of the beltway and to get to know the people they are affecting with their votes. Back in the day they were farmers, shopkeepers and so on and met in DC did their thing and went home. Now, many get elected, go to Washington and are there permanently. Their constituency never sees nor hears from them until re election time.

Under my proposal, they at least would be visible to the people and have to explain why they voted for certain things. It's accountability. If you can tell me another way to hold these people accountable. We, the people, should have reasons why they vote the way they do other than partisan bullshit. It's all about accountability not to the party or the lobbyists but to the people.



First, if the girl is 14 she shouldn't be able to get an abortion without her parents approval. She shouldn't be having sex. It's crazy and irresponsible of society to just allow a 14 year old to go to a clinic and kill her unborn child. A family member at 14 got pregnant and fell down the stairs to have a "self made" abortion. That family member afterward was a true mess psychologically for years. There are far better options than allowing minors abortions as birth control. It's fucked up if you allow or believe that abortion for a minor is ok as birth control. If it's a life or death situation, that's a different story.

Now, if your girl is a legal adult, she can go to a state where they have abortions.

If Ohioans vote to make abortion legal/illegal, that is the people's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, the Fed has no right to impose upon the people of Ohio the Federal government's will on that subject.

My personal view:

I used to be of the thought that "it's a woman's body let her decide." Then, I saw a friend who got his fiancee pregnant have a hard time reconciling with the fact she had an abortion. I have my own personal experience and changed that belief to, "If the father can take care of the child and wants the child then the mother should not be able to have an abortion."

That's pretty much what we have now. But the STATE should have that right to decide if they want to allow the marriage or not. Utah for many many years allowed polygamy because in the Mormon religion it is acceptable. So what happened if someone from Salt Lake got transferred to Podunk, Texas? Were their marriages null and void? No they were still legally married in the state of Utah.

As for legal rights of marriage, besides the right to not testify against your spouse what else is there. It doesn't cost much to sign a living will or to write up an emergency power of attorney that states person X will be in charge and have any medical say over my medical treatment if I cannot. I really have always been lost over this whole "legal" issue anyway. The only question federally is Social Security benefits and if you are legally married in a state that allowed it then it's not even a question.

Personally, I don't give a damn what people do behind their "bedroom" doors or what they worship or what they do with their life so long as they do not preach or inflict their beliefs on me. If you want to be gay, be gay, want to be a bible thumping Christian, be one, whatever... just do not tell me I have to be. Or dictate to the federal government that your way is the only way.

Guess what......... SMUGGLING ALREADY IS A BIG TIME INDUSTRY. Hey Zeus Freaking Crisp, you think that smuggling will get worse if Utah says no drugs and Nevada says any drug is legal?????? I have a feeling Utah may lose some people who move to Nevada and Utah would gain some from Nevada.

Stating that allowing individual states would make smuggling a big time industry is just ....... wow...... I can't think of any nice way to say what I think about that train of thought.

They already have that, in some states weed is a misdemeanor in others it's legal with a legal RX in others just a joint can get you in jail. IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DICTATE LAWS REGARDING DRUGS, IT'S THE PEOPLE OF A STATE'S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT.

Ohio as of April 1st made Salvia Divinorum illegal.... but it's legal in other states. So should the Federal government get involved and say too bad Ohio, the vast majority of states allow Salvia so you have to? I don't think so. If California votes to have medicinal marijuana, who the fuck cares (unless all of a sudden you get glaucoma and decide you need to move there).

See, I love the people who declare the FED has too much power but when people talk about taking power away from the Fed and giving it back to the state and local communities.... they change their tune and talk about why the Fed needs that power and how the states won't allow what they want allowed.

I have lived in many states, I have been to at last count 47 of our 50 states. People are people, YOU LEAVE THEM ALONE AND ALLOW THEM THE FREEDOMS TO ACHIEVE, GIVE THEM THE TOOLS AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR LIVES AND THE MAJORITY WILL THRIVE. The more the Fed comes into their lives, the more laws taking freedoms away, the more you make them scared of government and not government scared of them..... the more problems you'll have, the more failure you'll have, the more economic instability you will have.

If my community votes not to allow a Wal*Mart.... The federal government even thru lawsuit should not dictate that Wal*Mart will go in my community.


Dick Celeste in the 80's refused road monies because that was Reagan's way to blackmail states into making 21 the legal age to drink. Voters in Ohio had spoke 19 was the age for beer. Our roads suffered and he ended up caving. That's just one example of how the FED has power... I'm sure that there are many many more but that is the one I know of where a governor took the blackmail public. THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN.... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO BLACKMAIL A STATE BY WITHHOLDING THE TAX MONEY OF THE CITIZENS OF A STATE BECAUSE THE STATE WILL NOT BOW TO THE FEDERAL'S WILL.

"I want small government, except it's the government's right to choose what does or doesn't constitute human life." This isn't even close to being a libertarian stance; this is downright Bush conservative. You're absolutely welcome to your opinion, but this particular opinion flies in the face of wanting a smaller government and more liberty.

No, you are misreading my personal view that I added. It is the STATE'S right via it's populace to decide if they want abortion or not.

I never said I was a libertarian.

I am definitely not a Bush conservative.

My PERSONAL belief is if a 14 year old gets pregnant the parents should make the decision, the girl is a minor. To make abortion legal using that extreme as an example is ludicrous and sounds more like someone who would rather have the Fed dictate that abortion should be legal everywhere, regardless of the populace's voice.

I'm sorry but it is a fact that some parts of this country is very religious..... that being the case we should respect their right to decide what they want to allow in their communities and states and not the fucking federal governments. Nor can we make laws on extremes such as "we must allow abortion because a 14 yr old may get pregnant." IT'S AN EXTREME AND IT IS USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING PEOPLE TO GET YOUR WILL IMPOSED.

How come in 99.9% of a 14 year olds life the parents have say (i.e. schooling, curfews, who she sees, where she goes, etc) but it's ok to take away the parents say on that which for a 14 year old will influence her for life?????

ABORTION SHOULD NO, NOT, NEVER BE USED AS A BIRTH CONTROL OPTION FOR A 14 YEAR OLD. TO BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE IS FUCKING NUTS!!!!!!!

But this thread is not on abortion so if we need to argue this let's make a new thread.

I'm assuming you're going to your local Tea Party tomorrow. Do you have a video camera? If so, you should bring it and ask people, on camera, what they've come to say or support. It might be better to access the people directly instead of through blogs or 24 hour news.

It's not close to being anarchist, but libertarianism is a matter of limited government rather than its absence, and the right to life most certainly can fit within that limited government without "Bu$hitler!" being a justified response. Libertarians certainly aren't against the government determining that infants count as human life. It's a completely arbitrary distinction that derides anti-abortion laws as anti-libertarian. Assuming that the z/e/f is a human being - and that's where the real debate will always lie - there's nothing un-libertarian about a ban on abortion.

A libertarian who never rejects a push for more liberty is an anarchist.

particularly in the states, folk operate with an even more limited and limiting understanding of what anarchism means as well.

edit: thinking about this for another minute, equating right libertarians and anarchism makes no sense. the only shared viewpoint is that both tend to oppose consequences of the modern state. what that gets linked to, that politics follow from that, and what outcomes are desired are entirely incompatible.

but this is perhaps a topic for another time.

Apparently, FreedomWorks, the right wing corporate lobby, is playing a key part in the tea parties. Where do libertarians stand on lobbyists?

So, pan, you think that 50.1% of a state's populace should be allowed to make decisions on behalf of the entire state?

This is what baffles me, moderates can go to protests they believe in, sponsored by MoveOn, Center for American Progress, America Coming Together and so on and get all kinds of love from the networks and other press while they stroke those people's egos by telling them how wise and up to date and informed they are...... but have those same people go to these Tea Parties because they believe in them and all of a sudden these people are being duped and that they are sheep and have no idea what they are doing and are so out of touch with reality.

Seems to me the liberal press are trying very hard to make these appear as evil rallies for the sore losing Neo-Cons and so on. Much the same way the Right tries to keep people out of the protests and demonstrations the Left sponsors.

I think maybe the press and people on both sides need to shut the fuck up with veiled attacks on people's intelligence and how they feel and let a person wanting to attend a demonstration because that person believes in the demonstrations cause, attend. People can make up their own minds, people can decide what they want to believe in, they do not need egos stroked or bashed by outside forces (namely the media and extremists) for their beliefs. It's a pathetic grasp at control and keeping power when you have to resort to such ways so that an opposing view cannot be heard or taken seriously. Let the opposing view speak for itself, let the people decide.... FUCK THE MEDIA.

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

I believe in state's rights, so yeah. Voters in Ohio voted for a smoking ban... I'm not happy, I think it's wrong, but the people have spoken and if I don't like it enough I can move to a state that allows smoking. Plain and simple.

I also am a believer that state's rights should be limited to state business and communities have rights within their own area.

I don't believe the Federal government has the right to dictate or someone has the right to threaten federal lawsuit because a judge put up the 10 commandments in his court or a town that is vastly Christian wants to have a Christmas parade and can't because they are scared of the lawsuits that may come.

If the judge makes his judgments based on the Bible and not the laws of the land then you have a case. If a city decides to ban any other religions church/synagogue/temple from being built or people of a differing faith to worship... then there maybe a case. Otherwise, let the will of the people decide what is best for their community or state. So long as it does not violate US Constitutional rights.... it's not a Federal problem.

Remember first and foremost in order to be a state your constitution had to be accepted and the US Constitutional became the guideline. So don't give me extremes like Georgia will reenact slavery, Texas will allow rape, Alabama will make Christianity the state religion.... those extremes even if voted by the people would never become state laws.... and if they did, then and only then should the Federal government be allowed to step in.

pan....this is what baffles me.

You have often criticized people who voted for Obama as sheep or blindly following the "messiah" and now you bitch (again) that somehow you are being attacked (again) when folks point out factual information about the organizations funding and setting the agenda for these tea parties.

I suspect you will be among some who share your beliefs, some who are there to deride the current so-called "socialist" drift of the country and promote the conservative Republican tax and regulatory agenda, some who are there to scream for Obama's impeachment, and some out of curiosity.

I will watch the coverage of these events with interest. In the end, I think it will be like watching the Ron Paul "phenomenon" during the campaign. People of varying and diverse passions, often with little in common (ie for RP, it was the anti-war crowd on the left and the say NO to most govt taxes and spending crowd on the right ) and attempting andhoping to convince themselves and the country that they represent the vast majority of mainstream America...when in fact, they will turn out to represent no more than 5% of the populace.

Go forth and party your heart out!

First, I voted for Obama.... and yes, the press made him their golden boy and there were extremists who to this day refuse to allow Obama to be attacked. Yet, were very outspoken against Bush and fought for their right to say anything they liked about him.

Secondly, it was an observation that BOTH sides use the same tactics when they try to bully, shame and influence others into not doing something they disapprove of but the person may deep down believe in... or at the very least want to get some idea what it's about first hand.

But again, you turn this into telling me what YOU want this to be about and not what I believe it is about and am willing to go see firsthand.

I think I'll keep you on ignore DC.... you seem to not know me at all, but want to make accusations of who I am and what I believe in rather than reading what I post...... good day.

You are right...I dont know you. I just respond to your posts as I see them.....and your posts are nearly always about YOU being attcked.

Feel free to put me on ignore now. :)

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

Anger at taxes is apparently one of the core issues of the tea baggers.

Gallup had a poll on federal income tax this week.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the results of these two questions....other than to agree with Gallup that the "Views of Income Taxes Among Most Positive Since 1956.":

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...t2rx4e480g.gif


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...w_w-4mbbeq.gif

I dont think the corporate lobbyists/organizers of these events who are promoting massive tax cuts for the wealthy will cite the Gallup polls, but instead will use the opportunity to continue to willfully misrepresent Obama's proposed tax cuts that will benefit most tea baggers in attendance.

It's been about pan getting attacked since that Rev. Wright thread last year and tried to make himself look like a martyr. If you don't agree with him, you're automatically attacking him, kind of amusing.

I have nothing personal against Pan. I wish him well at his party.

And these parties may in fact lead to a better national dialogue...but I highly doubt it since its likely that the lobbyists setting the agenda and anti-Obama haters in the crowd will dominate the events to the exclusion of those who, like Pan, may be sincere in their concerns for change for the better.

And as a result, in the end, IMO, much like the Ron Paul revolution, these party goers will have their day tomorrow, FOX will hype it for a few weeks, and then the "movement" will fizzle out due to lack of widespread interest in being part of such a narrow, partisan, extremist agenda as is at the core of the party sponsors.