Why is the state allowed to dictate whether or not your community allows smoking in public? What gives the state of Ohio the right, but not the federal government, to institute that smoking ban in your community? Shouldn't it be on a community by community basis, based on your logic? I'm trying to understand what's so magical about the state that is not magical about the federal government or the county, or the township, or the city, or the ward.

I have nothing against pan either, he seems like a good guy, I hope he gets the change he's hoping for, but I reckon he won't be happy regardless of what happens.

What's with the false equivalence bullshit? "moderates can go to protests they believe in, sponsored by MoveOn... and get all kinds of love?"

Where was this love. Don't start with platitudes. Where was this love? Which news organization helped fund raise for these organizations? Supported them to the degree fox news, Glen Beck, Rush and so on have supported the "tea parties?"

And where are these people who worship Obama, who see him as a golden boy who can't do no wrong?

Where? If this is all so prevalent, it shouldnt be too hard to find half a dozen examples in this thread alone.

This siege you seem to believe to be under is entirely a fabrication of your mind.

And yet you claim that anyone who is not ready to fall for a GOP sponsored event is brainwashed, obnoxious and snobbish. And that you are the one being attacked!

Also, by how much, exactly, are your taxes going up under Obama?

It just gets boring after a while reading the same crap without an ounce of substance and still be accused of being brainwashed.

I agree with you. I also want to say that I'm 100% AGAINST issues like abortion and gay marriage being decided on a state-by-state basis, especially if they are being decided by popular vote. The idea that the majority of people voting about gay rights would not be gay, or that half (or more) of the people voting on abortion rights would be men just doesn't sit well with me.

There are MoveOn protests? I've honestly never heard of them. If I did, I'd never go to them. Think tanks and lobbies have ulterior and self-serving motives that run counter to the idea behind protests.

Okay, I googled these protests and it looks like they only include official MoveOn members. This is a case of apples and oranges. Or are you a member of FreedomWorks?

move on was active in organizing the early protests against the war in iraq.
we all know how much love they got from the press.
o yeah, those liberal heroes in the mainstream press stood right on up to bush administration, to conservative domination, to the foul and unnecessary war in iraq and the broader "war on terror" that made it possible.
i was at alot of those protests and have a pretty good idea of just how much love there was. it was easy to see in the tiny paragraphs devoted to the demonstrations which covered the 20 people who'd show up to counterprotest at action which drew upward of a half million people as if they were operating on the same level.

it was easy to see, just like translating those messages from the space alien overlords are if you peer real hard at baseball box scores is easy.

It's called the constitution. Why SHOULDN'T the state be allowed to decide on smoking issues? The federal constitution says anything not given to the federal government is to be regulated by the states. Does everything have to be black and white nationwide?

I never understand this. Why would someone in a liberal state want to force their beliefs on a state with more conservative values or vice versa?

The federal government is basically supposed to protect sovereignty of the United States, issue currency, build postal roads, issue patents and a few other very limited powers. Currently they do much more than that and can't get what they are supposed to do correctly.

I don't agree with states regulating smoking over local communities, but they should have the power over it instead of the federal government.

The states have their constitutional right to self direction under the 10th amendment.

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

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

This is by design to encourage each state's regional identity under the union (diversity). Read the 5000 Year Leap.

The point is not so much about why the federal government shouldn't have authority over states, but why states, according to pan, should have authority over smaller communities. Pan specifically said that he accepts the Ohio smoking ban because it was passed by the state. I'm wondering what logic he's using that makes him OK with that but not OK with the federal government superceding the states on issues of discrimination such as gay marriage.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

I understand the 10th Amendment, but what is generally being argued for here is a confederacy, which goes well beyond the 10th Amendment. Besides, we tried that once and it was a failure.

it's worse than simple incoherence logically---the particular state's rights arguments we've treated to above comes out of the reconstruction period and was used throughout it, and again in opposition to the civil rights movement, to attempt to short-circuit policies and laws that were set up to assure that african-americans were treated equally. this history is to my mind so ugly that it baffles me each time i see the same kind of arguments repeated here. and there's no wishing this history away. it doesn't change. there's an overwhelming amount of documentation that demonstrates this linkage.

the only tweak on them above, really, is now a perverse appropriation of the discourse of diversity has been tacked on.

from what i can figure, the problems are structurally about the same for these folk as it was for their intellectual forebearers in the opposition to civil rights---they're freaked out that the federal government is acting because they are concerned that if it does act, they will loose. this because the petit-bourgeois right is made up of the eternal victim, is built around the mythology of its own victimization...so better inaction and incoherence, particularly in a situation of crisis--seemingly because if there's inaction and incoherence, these folk might not loose, but if the federal government act, they seem sure that they definitely will.

Can someone recommend a few stodgy conservative journo-outlets similar to The Economist? I'd like to hear some more opinons on this from that set.

Because I don't believe in sweeping generalizations like "Liberal" or "Conservative" states. I lived in Chicago for 12 years, and it was pretty obvious that while Chicago was Liberal, the rest of the state leaned more conservative. The state is considered "blue" because the Chicago area has about 75% of the state's voting body, but where does that leave the rest of the state?

Personally, I think smoking should be up to the private business owner. But, it's up to the state. I understand what you are saying and a selfish part of me wants to say let the communities decide and up until then in Ohio they had to a degree. Akron was pretty much smoke free within the city, Canton a restaurant had to have a room or area with separate ventilation (the law cost a lot of places money because they had installed the separate ventilation).

My view is that when enough communities within a state and enough people petition for a law, like that, it is the state's responsibility to put it to vote. To me a vote on an issue such as this is far, far different than the state just saying "you cannot smoke in public places."

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

Just because the majority is not gay or men.... does not mean that they would vote against the proposals.

I just think that it is not the Fed's purpose to dictate what laws such as those a state can have. I also don't believe that every state would deny legalized abortion or gay marriage. And if it doesn't pass the first time, find out what would help it pass and keep putting it on the ballot.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------


Plain and simple it's called wanting to have power over others.If you are pro-abortion and you get abortion clinics everywhere including the heart of the Bible Belt where the vast majority do not want it but can do nothing about it because the Fed government states you can't..... then you have a sense of power over these people because your view and will proved more powerful than theirs.

That's why extremists do not want the states allowing the people to decide their laws. If they give that power to the Fed and can vote the party in they can impose their will regardless of what the true (not some poll) majority of a state wants.

Like gay marriage, I really don't believe in the vast majority that this is an issue. It only becomes an issue when you take it out of the people's hands and give that right to decide to the Fed. or state. Then, it becomes just a dictation and not a consensus of the people's will. Dictations people resent, letting the people vote and decide allows them the feeling of being heard.

Normally I'd say hubris, but I'd kinda like to legalize gay marriage in Utah out of retaliation for what they did to my state. What's your stance on retaliatory belief forcing? Perpetual belief forcing? Belief forcing escalation? Or justice?

This is the single greatest thing ever broadcast on a cable news channel:


- Schuster: If You're Planning Tea Bagging Across The Country, 'You're Going To Need A Dick Armey'

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I will say this states should mandate who can fund issue ads. To have out of state people or corporations do it should be illegal. Sort of a campaign finance law on issue spending in states.

Californians had it with Utah and others, we had ours last year through Indiana's riverboats (and other state's but they were the big ones) spending huge sums to make sure the gambling issue failed here.

There is only 1 law I truly would like to see nationally and that is equal time for candidates and issues (in other words NO money being spent)... that way he who has the most money isn't guaranteed more air time or chance to bury the opposition with more ads.

But when enough communities within a state and enough people petition for a federal representative, and that representative chosen by the people passes a federal law with the help of other representatives chosen by the people - in fact, a majority of representatives chosen by the people - that's a problem? Why are state representatives more worthy of being recognized as chosen by the people than federal representatives?

You're right, gay marriage is not an issue to the vast majority of people (about 90%). It's those ~10% of people - the gay population - who care a great deal about gay marriage because it is the government - state or otherwise - making a value judgment about their relationship. You have yet to explain to me why state's can't choose whether or not to allow interracial marriage, but can choose whether or not to allow gay marriage. Neither situation is covered under the US constitution.

Based on pan's past posts, I find it hard to believe that he's so pro "Tyranny of the Majority" as he claims.

seriously, i see nothing in pan's posts beyond anxiety.

the only coherent argument for transferring that much power to the states is that state government seems physically closer and so gives a greater illusion of control.
the individual arguments don't fit together.

i understand why folk would be anxious in this overall economic situation.
we're all at least a bit anxious.
what i don't understand is allowing that anxiety free reign to entirely shape how you see, well, everything, and even less giving yourself over to a politics entirely determined by it, speaking to and about only it.

I'm also not sure why anyone would think that gay rights, abortion rights or the like should be voted on by the public. We're not talking about how state tax dollars are spent here or if Ohio should build a casino in Cleveland. Constitutional rights should be voted on by either the state congress or decided by the state supreme court.

that problem is why i mentioned the ugly history of this version of state's rights arguments as they emerged during the reconstruction period.

it is a real problem. i don't think folk have thought this out.

So are these people protesting that Obama has lowered their tax rates?

I haven't watched any of the coverage so I don't even know. I'd be willing to wager that many of the people don't even know why they're there.

Time will tell. I can't wait for the media coverage of today's Tax Day Anti-Tax Tea Party Protests. (Say that ten times fast.)

That's one bet I'd not take against you. From what I've been able to discern many if not most of them are Limbaugh-listening dittoheads who are determined to believe that the democrats want to take their money, even though they'll end up paying less under the democratic plan. There is a certain section of society, depressingly large, that fights loudly and vigorously for their own detriment.

what a shock. it's the lead story on faux news webpage.

Anti-Tax 'Tea Party' Protests Expected Across U.S. - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

this is particularly funny:

and of course there is the requisite proactive edito decrying the "liberal press" and its "orwellian" demeanor and chastizing it in advance for not covering the "grassroots" movement, brought to you by faux news and a range of other conservative/corporate sponsors:

DAN GAINOR: Note to the Media — Just Do Your Job and Cover the Tea Parties FOX Forum FOXNews.com

this is funny stuff.

This theatre bit,
has a familiar stink;

another attempt to froth the waters,
with fear and instability, as a diversionary, control tactic.

Trying to tip the balance,
by manipulating the teeter-totter.

Well when you get enough states making something legal/illegal much like cities/counties to state, then Congress and the president can debate it and vote for it.

Not that it worked well or was the best of ideas in history, but that's how Prohibition was started enough states had already outlawed alcohol in one way or another and the amendment process started.

Personally, I don't care who marries whom. But by the same token, I don't believe in forcing my beliefs into a state I will probably never live in.

If your gay and you cannot get married in your state go to one that allows it and get married then go back and live happily ever after.

The problem with this country is you have extremists carrying clubs around and bashing people over the head, threatening lawsuits and trying to bully their will into law. There is no compromise. There is no respecting others beliefs. there's just "I'll pummel you into submission, I'll get the press to back me and I'll sue you into poverty until you accept my will."

I truly believe the average citizen, who works hard and is just trying to survive is tired of it. It's all back and forth and back and forth and nothing seems to truly get done but for the people carrying the clubs bashing innocents.

If you want gay marriage in your state work with people by telling them your side, why that issue is important, how it will affect them and campaign for it. Don't bash people into acceptance. IT WON'T HAPPEN. In the end all you will ever get is resentment and more prejudice, more hatred and more polarity, anger and an eventual breakdown in society that will call for a police state. If you truly want freedom, it comes from the people voting on issues that affect them or family or friends. If you want a police state continue the road we are on and ignore what the majority wants because you believe government and the guys carrying the clubs know what is best for EVERYONE and not just an extreme vocal minority.

all I know is if it has this many liberals and democrats doing everything they can to mock and ridicule it, somebody is doing something right.

By that logic, dksuddeth, the tea parties prove that Obama is doing something right.

I see, so it's ok for the federal government to force states to obey laws that they don't otherwise want so long as enough other states also created the same laws, but not if enough federal representatives chosen by the people of other states to make federal laws create the law. Makes total sense. :rolleyes:

Too bad that's not how it works. Other states are not obligated to recognize the marriage. More importantly, you still have not addressed my question. Are you saying you support a state's right to outlaw interracial marriage: yes or no? If not, what makes interracial marriage - which is not protected under the US constitution - a federal issue, but gay marriage a state one?

Funny, have you heard of this thing called the Civil Rights Movement? See, in the south (and elsewhere, but primarily the south) there was this minority of people who had a different color skin, and the majority of people in those states at the time did not want to treat them fairly. They did everything they had to in order to comply with the US constitution, but absolutely no more, and so the minority of people - and others who supported them - metaphorically bullied their will into law. In the end, they won, because enough people recognized that the United States government does not solely exist to enforce the will of the majority, but also to protect the minority from that majority. There are some negative side-effects in the short term, yes, but lo and behold now we have a black president, which was unimaginable just 40 years ago. Go figure.

owned....

Yeah if that many neo-cons and GOP'ers are pissed off something must be going right.

What's the word? Any field reports from our Tea Partiers?

The one here doesn't start until 5, I believe.

this is kind of a funny read. really is it that contentious?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...92-57-26PM.png
from: http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/...ptorsFlyer.pdf

that's classic.

it's a drama queen pamphlet advising other drama queens to not be such drama queens else they be caught on camera and their image sent out over feeds not properly boxed in by the official conservative press structures interpretation and in the process be revealed as drama queens.

my favorite remedy: pretend to be interested.

proof positive that it's all about perception. thats why I have the mindset that I do. I'm getting really tired of the left/right BS.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

strange, I don't FEEL owned.

And what mindset is that? That only your skewed perception of things is the right perception? You aren't making very much sense here. . .

The fact (yes, FACT) is that 95% of us will pay lower taxes under Obama's plan, and yet a good portion of that 95% is running around to tea parties today yelling about how pissed off they are about having to pay higher taxes. They're uninformed, ignorant, wrong, and just plain stupid.

shak, I'm not speaking for DK, but if I'm reading it the way that I'm understanding it, I'm tired of the conflict right/left crap. I don't see or hear the liberal/conservative, I just hear the pissing, moaning, and whining. It's tiresome, it's never-ending, it's annoying, it's stupid.

When it was Bush I, it was there. When it was Clinton, it was there. When it was Bush II, it was there.

It's old, it's tired, it's annoying and doesn't endear me to any side.

If he is tired of left vs right, then he should not write things like "all I know is if it has this many liberals and democrats doing everything they can to mock and ridicule it, somebody is doing something right." If you don't like the labels, then you'd best not use them yourself.

I find it interesting that most of the "Oh I'm so tired of the partisan bickering" complaints from the right come when the right is not in power. I never saw "oh my god we have to forget political parties!" during the Contract with America, or during W's presidency until the 2006 "thumpin'" they got from the Democrats.

The simple fact is that the neo-con right in this country changes their stance whenever it suits them. During W's reign it was unpatriotic and treasonous to question a President during a time of war, and yet now they're whipping people up into tea-party frenzies. It was horrible for Clinton to screw around with his intern, but it's OK for Gingrich and McCain to sleep around on their wives, and divorce them while they were in the hospital. It's horrible to expect taxpayers to help people when the taxpayers will never directly benefit from the aid, unless of course we're helping banks and megacorporations run by and profiting republicans. The hypocrisy and disingenuity from the right is extreme to the point of absurdity, and so when someone on the right then comes out and says "gee can't we all just get along and work with each other," you'll excuse me if I don't buy it.

The one here was a great annoyance. It was right across the street and went on during a conference call that I had. Too loud, accomplished nothing. Just like most of the protests that go on there.

ok, it's nice that there's an agreement about this sort of discussion being tiresome---and it is---but what do you (or does anyone) propose to do about it?

one of the reasons this thread has grown as tired and stinky as it has follows from the simple fact that there's no agreement at all about the premises of a discussion.

in this case, for example, there is a group of folk who understand that to talk about the tea parties is to talk about how they're being manufactured, and to see them as a conservative pseudo-grassroots movement--and there's another group that wants to see in them an opportunity to channel whatever it is that motivates them politically, and who therefore have no particular interest in talking about these (non) events in the same way at all.

from there, it seems like there's noplace to go but talking past each other, and sure enough across the whole of this thread, people have talked past each other.

this is nothing new, nor is it a function of anything to do with tfp--it's a direct reflection of how political viewpoints have been framed over a considerable period. and each side of any given debate understands their premises as a viable place to start---and there's typically very little chance that a discussion about premises, about starting points, is going to happen here.

there are a variety of moves that folk try to get around this and force a discussion about starting points, but typically they simply fall down or are ignored (it comes to the same thing)....

speaking for myself, i find the refusal to debate starting points to be endlessly irritating. and it hardly seems plausible that folk are going to engage over interior arguments because these arguments *rely* on premises---the reproduce them, perform their effects---and often that's where the problem really lay.

so it seems to me there's a simple choice--either we collectively agree to try something different, or the endless performance of what i take to be a pathetic state of political discourse in the states generally is just going to repeat itself again and again.

Again, I can't speak for dk, but I will continue to speak for myself.

I didn't like it for any side. I don't think it is acceptable for anyone to sleep around on their spouses. It isn't about who's in power, it's ALL politicians for me. I find that a good percentage of politicians are liars, cheats, and thieves.

So no, I didn't think it was okay for the republicans when they were in power to not point out the same things. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Not wrong only if they are democrats.

If you want to say that it's because I'm from the right because I'm a registered republican that's patently absurd. It's just as broad a brush you're waving and painting everyone with. There are a number of people who just want to get their jobs done and not have this back and forth culture war/clash, whatever you'd like to call it.

What Are Tax-Day Tea Parties Protesting?
 

Here is a blog entry from Atlantic.com that might offer some perspective:

What Are Tax Day Tea Parties Protesting? - The Atlantic Business Channel (emphasis mine)

Interesting. What do you make of this?

I'm not accusing you of anything, but then you stepped in on comments that I was directing at someone else and took on that mantle yourself. That isn't my fault.

I'm tired of the idiotic partisanship myself, but to discuss this particular issue without discussing the partisanship is like discussing the moon landing without discussing NASA. The two are intimately intertwined, because this whole Tea Party thing is a GOP plot to whip up the stupid into a frenzy.

Seriously. You should have seen the Whigs and the Tories going at it.

Hell, when the Abolitionists went after the Anti-Abolitionists, it started a civil war. (Oversimplification, I know, but stay with me.)

Folks: politics is a zero sum game. It's fundamentally competitive. There are winners and there are losers. Has been since a LEAST ancient Rome. To now come along and say "can't we all get along?" is ludicrous. There's no such thing as "post-partisan". There could be a candidate that has broad appeal across party lines, but that's not "post-partisan", that's just a very popular candidate. One guess who I'm talking about.

The fact is, the Democrats won and the Republicans lost. Them's the facts. To whatever degree the Republican Party represents conservatism, conservatism lost.

On a scale of one to ten, if you're a two and you're out BEING a two, you're fine. Life's working. What doesn't work is if you're a ten and you're pretending you're a two, or if you're a two pretending to be a ten. The Republican Party needs to start owning their current minority status. MAYBE from there they can rebuild something that will have some power in the future. But this "silent majority" bullshit they're trying to pull is going to lock in their loser status for the long haul.

A little free advice from somebody who wouldn't mind them doing that. ;)

I didn't take it as an accusation, just a broad stroke.

What I do find is that history removes the back and forth. It is still there but it's not as "24/7/365" in the books, it's a paragraph or maybe even a sentence.

I am utterly appalled at this statement, "My money is disappearing," said one protester, Marilyn Henretty 70, a retiree. "We are tired of being taxed without representation." since she obviously has NO FREAKING idea as to what she's talking about. Unless she lives in DC, she's absolutely wrong.

As far as the teabaggers are concerned, I'm looking forward to reading or watching a few minutes of the stupidity on TV. I don't see the correlation from the original Boston Tea Party, to the one foisted upon the current people. They aren't representative of the same or even similar value systems. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if this was how we wound up with Woodstock II, trying to recapture that lightning in a bottle without one's own foray into something original.

While this is generally correct, in this very limited case of the tea parties, even using a similar set of agreements some choose to ignore the consequences of their own positions.

For example, setting aside the whole issues of whether or not the state should be smaller, whether or not these protests are fabricated and whether or not they are simply partisan hackery: even if we start with the premise that the federal government should be small, there is a very large number of people who want this sort of miraculous small state while keeping its biggest programs alive. It is entirely inconsistent to demand lower taxes and a smaller state at the same time one wants universal health care and free college. Or even demanding lower taxes while keeping medicare and the military intact.

Can you estimate the number of people? I considered going out of curiosity but decided it wasn't worth the time or gas.

Here are images from DC. One of these is the tea party protest and another is for woman's reproductive rights. I'll leave it to the reader figure out which is which.

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/u...hingtontea.jpg
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/women.jpg

500? It filled Federal Plaza but not totally. There was lots of room around the flamingo, and the crowd wasn't even close to the post office. The immigration marches a couple of years ago were MUCH, MUCH larger.

To put it another way, it didn't disrupt traffic in The Loop one bit.

Thanks Baraka!

then why do you believe in letting a state's anti-gay population force their beliefs on its gay population? why are you okay with Ohio's anti-smokers forcing their will on you? How is this better at the state level than at the federal level? States aren't unified blocs of population with similar beliefs no matter how much you'd like to believe they are.

baraka: that amounts to a version of the anxiety theory i was running out earlier, but at least has the advantage of linking it to something vaguely related to the tea party sloganeering---and it would explain, were it a correct interpretation, why the objectives outlined by the organizers seem to be unhinged from reality in the present.

what i think that analysis underplays is the extent to which the teaparty thing is also about an asserting of political/ideological continuity in a space that seems not to allow for it. in this, there'd also be a therapeutic function, but it wouldn't be linked to the slogans in the sense that the slogans would not be about anything but themselves, and wouldn't have to be about anything but themselves---if the continuity idea is correct, simply being able to repeat them would be a way to manage cognitive dissonance in a sense, a world out of phase with the way it is framed for this demographic, whatever it's size.

hah foxnews is caught blatantly lying about the number of people at these rallies.

Live mic catches Fox host inflating crowd estimate by 300% - Daily Kos TV (beta)

Neil Cavuto is caught before going live estimating the numbers at 5000. Then when he gets on air he says "The number of expected people was 5000 but it must be at least double or triple that".

That's actually a really good description which helps me do exactly what I wanted: compare this to the Prop 8 protest I attended at the same location.

You know, the one that was put together in only 11 days with over 5,000 people who then took to the streets without a permit and disrupted rush hour traffic for a couple hours, because they cared so much about the issue.

How long have they been planning these tea parties? Something like 30 days? Seems to me "the people" have spoken. Granted it's Chicago, but they apparently care about gay marriage 10x more than these tea parties.

They did this in Arizona. In Tempe, it was banned, in Scottsdale it wasn't. Plenty of businesses (from family restaurants, college bars, nightclubs, strip clubs, and other places) were impacted by it, and a lot just closed down and relocated. It didn't change how much second hand smoke people were breathing in, it was just in a different city.

Now, in Ohio, you have to drive up to Michigan (or another state that allows smoking indoors). That is a little longer trip.

As for the tea parties, I protested the IRS building in 2006 by myself (only for a minute). I have a great picture of it. And I have always said that we needed to pay down the national debt instead of giving out the Bush tax cuts and the stimulus checks. But, there wasn't any outrage back then. Now, only a few months into Obama's term, you would think that the tax rate was going up to 90% for everyone.

These people should thank the government for protecting them from the violent Anarchists who wouldn't think twice about killing them if there was no government, no laws, no police, no jail.

Having witnessed and dealt with both the oppressiveness of the right during Bush and outcries of the left in that same period and now having to deal with the overbearing of the left during Obama and the outrage from the right, my mindset is pretty much F U ALL. I raise hell about some of Bush policies and i'm labeled negatively from both sides. I raise hell about some of Obamas policies and I'm labeled from both sides.

What sucks ass about the whole damned thing is both left and right have great things about them but y'all are too damned intent on forcing the bad aspects of both your ideologies on the other and it breeds anger and miscontent. I'm of the mindset that i'm hopeful the next civil war starts so we can start over.

Breaking the Mold - Democrat Attends Tea Party - FOXNews.com

This was prior to today, of course someone's going to decry it because its' from Fox, in 3, 2, 1...

but I have read other democrats on Facebook saying they went to tea parties not as observers but as protesters.

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Interesting, being marginalized by both sides because it's staying the line of what's wrong instead of it's only wrong when X party does it.

i've made no pretense of my fiscal conservatism on here as well as my social liberalism, but to some people elsewhere i'm either a libertarian because i'm a disgruntled or ineffective republican, or i'm independent because I don't want to be labeled a socialist, which is hilarious given my fiscal conservatism but some people are just plain moronic.

so yes, it sucks being marginalized at both ends because I don't completely agree with either left or right.

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

like i said, i'm labeled by both sides when they refuse to see that i've criticized both sides.

I am tired of the partisan bickering. I'm tired of the false labeling I get from both sides. If you don't like the labeling that I give you, maybe that should make you reconsider what it is you really don't like.

Oh I understand why it's better to do it state-wide, I'm just not sure why pan thinks it's better to do it statewide.

The GOP needs to be spanked like the 5 year old throwing a fit in the toy aisle at Walmart.

hopefully this won't take the thread too far off topic, but this is one of the things i'm tired of. Conservatism didn't lose, republicans did. Why? Because they weren't conservative. Liberals/democrats seem to purposefully ignore even the pretense of that possibility. Why? I'm sure it's likely to do with making themselves feel more positive about their movement, I don't know for sure though.

Again, conservatism didn't lose, the republicans lost because they weren't conservative.

Didn't the real conservatives lose in the primaries?

No, actually, this Liberal will heartily agree with you. For 3 decades the republican party has been hijacked by neocons masquerading as conservatives, when in fact they spend far more than the liberals ever dreamed of, only their spending tends to go to crap that doesn't help the society they govern. They lost this election because all the asinine "give everything to the rich and fuck everybody else" policies they've been ramming through over the years finally came home to roost and killed the economy.

We need to start the TFP party. I gave up in 2000 trying to be for one side or the other. I would be a green libertarian who agrees with the work less party (in Canada), sex party (in Australia), and pro-health party (in England). And add in some one child rules from China, and technology from Japan/Korea, we are all humans and live on this small planet from the UN, and anti outdoor advertisements from North Korea, and it might come close to representing me. But, there probably aren't too many others who are exactly like me.

I'm not thrilled at the situation we find ourselves in either, but I know there are policies that I agree with and some that I don't like. I live a moral conservative life, and can fake it to be accepted by them, but in my own life, I am a far left socially free hippy. Anything goes in my life on-line where it can't be traced back to my real life. I have no problem with guns, gay marriage, abortion, torture, wiretaps, stem cell research or strippers. Prostitution (would a woman want to do this if it wasn't for the money?), pollution, excessive consumption of oil/electricity, and corporations telling me what I can do don't sit very well with me.

Thank you good sir. this was about 85% of the reason republicans got shitcanned.

Though I disagree with it, I have a lot of respect for a true libertarian message. I've read and taught Hayek, and I have an appreciation for him.

The problem is that the republican party and most of the most vocal "conservative movement" (focus on the family, rick warren, the prop 8 crowd, club for growth, the randian cult) are only libertarian when it comes to the pro business part. When it comes to the police state, civil liberties, busting unions or funding for their own pet causes, they love them some state money.

Based on the photos I saw today, the nut-jobs were out in full force

The trouble with your desire to eliminate partisanship is that we have 2 viable parties in this country, and neither ever agrees with the other. If you want to eliminate partisanship, you have to eliminate the stranglehold the 2 parties have on the political system - something you can't do until we institute instant runoff elections so that a vote for Nader or Perot or whichever non-democan/republicrat is running isn't a "lost" vote.

But, I think the Republicrats like being in power, so. . good luck ever seeing that happen, because no matter what the American people simply will not rise up and demand it.

I just got back from the San Jose Tea party. I had a blast.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...Protesters.jpg

People started showing up around 3 or so and the rally got started at about 5. KSFO, the local conservative radio station, sponsored the entire event, taking responsibility for putting out the word, setting up a few booths, supplying a sound system, and having several of their hosts speak.

I would guess there were about 400 or so Tea Party-ers there and about 50-70 amnesty protesters.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...el/Amnesty.jpg

I know what you're all wondering: what was said?

It was a Republican rally. They talked about all the exact same things McCain and Palin talked about during the 2008 election. And the people that showed up represented myriad Republican viewpoints. There were pro-lifers, anti-bail outers, anti-immigrationers, anti-taxers, but mostly just anti-Obamists. I'd say about 80% of the people there were just there to be Republican. There was little to no libertarian presence I could discern. I have to tell you how incredibly disappointed I am. While it was a blast to have live debates with people on the street, it was nothing new and had no link to any legitimate claim. They don't want to pay taxes, they don't want Mexicans, and they don't like Obama. Yawn.

There was one guy there to show his support for the Sharks. Which was awesome.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...l/GoSharks.jpg

Instead of endless arguing I'll simply point out, I espouse my beliefs, noone else and I do not lay claim anyone believes exactly as I do. I believe in compromise. I am okay with my rights as a smoker to be be lessened because the majority voted for it. I can still smoke in my house, in my car and outside, until I can't I am willing to make that concession. Now, come into my house, my car and tell me I can't smoke there or give me a ticket for smoking outside on a sidewalk and I'll have to fight about that.

It's better at the state level because the voters voted. And the issue can be placed on the ballot again and the ban lifted by the voters.

I believe most people are more willing to compromise if they have the choice to control their state's policy. There is no compromise in the federal government anymore.... It all depends on who is in power as to what will be law, what laws are enforced and what laws aren't. No compromise, no recognition of the individual state's and people's rights, cultures or beliefs.

You guys keep questioning my beliefs but not one of you answered why it should be a Federal case for a judge to have the 10 Commandments up in his courtroom and not one of his judgments were ever proven or even questioned to have a religious bias to them.

Why is it ok for the Federal government to prohibit a man's right to have a religious article in his office, especially if no one can prove he has bias or uses that religion to do his job?

The 10 commandments weren't listed in his office, they were in a public area of the courtroom, which gives undue treatment to one religion over others in a government building. While it doesn't necessarily violate the letter of the First Amendment, it does violate its spirit. Furthermore, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to promote the 10 commandments and the Abrahamic religions they are a part of. Such a display does not celebrate the roots of the American justice system, because America is not, and never was, a Christian nation, and the fact many people then and now agree that it is wrong to murder or steal does not mean that those thoughts were inspired by the 10 commandments.

So, now that I've answered that, will you finally answer whether or not you think it is OK for the voters of a state to decide to outlaw interracial marriage? If you don't think that's OK, will you explain why it is OK for the federal government to impose itself on the states with regards to interracial marriage but not with regards to same-sex marriage, since neither is protected under the US constitution?

Also, you say it's better at the state level because voters voted. I assume you're talking about a ballot initiative. Are you only OK with laws passed by ballot initiatives? If the Ohio smoking ban were not a ballot initiative but, instead, a law passed by the state legislature, would it somehow be less valid in your eyes, despite the state legislature being elected representatives of the people? If it would be equally valid, why is it more OK for the state legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people than it is for the federal legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people? If it would not be equally valid, what does it take for a law passed by a legislature instead of a ballot initiative to be valid in your eyes?

"On 9/11, I think they hit the wrong building" | Salon News

a piece from salon on the tea party thing that i bit from ms media (thanks)...

a side note:

since we're laying the cards on the table in terms of where we come from politically...i come out of a pretty hard marxist background analytically, but don't consider myself a marxist simply because on it's own grounds, analytically and politically, it's over. but i think the way i see things is influenced by this background. i tend to see capitalism in its various forms as a structurally problematic mode of production and often link situations i try to pull apart back to various structural features. i don't see revolution as an inevitable outcome--i see breakdown as more likely---this because the groundwork for a coherent revolutionary project have been pretty thoroughly shattered by the history of the marxist-inspired movements themselves. alot of the stuff i do outside of here is concerned with working out a conceptual basis for a different kind of radical politics, but it's a project that sometimes seems an end in itself. but it keeps the wheels turning.

i don't have much patience with american politics. i generally default into voting for democrats, but i see them as ineffectual, not even social democrats.
because despite my contempt for the dominant order i still live here, i hope that the obama administration figures out ways to pick through the wreckage neoliberalism has made and in the process put into motion a more equitable version of a fundamentally flawed system of systems (this is shorthand, nothing more).

example: in hayek, what folk tend to gloss over is the critique of bureaucracy, which is a critique of the fundamental division of intellectual labor particular to capitalism. it shapes his arguments for "free markets" because such conditions make of the history of price a device that an organization can use to get an idea of what it is doing--without that, a bureaucratic organization is blind to itself. this basic position is *not* restricted to critiques of the state---but the more conservative side of hayek routes it through a fear of "collectivism" such that it becomes a critique of state power. the interesting thing about his work lay in the fact that it points to a basic structural problem in the way capitalism operates--the interesting thing about how it's taken is that this basic problem is ignored, and the elements of his position, which logically fit together (like it or not) get mangled. that said, i'm not a fan of hayek--i just think he's alot more interesting than his fans make him out to be.


another aside:
the other main thing that i go back to and back to is how ideology operates, even though the term is problematic in many ways.

the american right is going through an accelerated version of the type of ideological crisis--i like the word pulverization because it seems more appropriate---that the older let tradition passed through after 1956. the left's version curious to think about, and only appears as a single phenomenon ex post facto--but you can trace how it worked, and it's possible to develop narratives that outline it, even as these narratives won't conform easily to the kind of thing you're used to reading. this because, for example, an ideology is not a thing but rather what enables linkages between phenomena, so it's kinda intangible even as it operates continually through statements and projections folk make about the world. how do you talk about this using a language that reduces what it stages to the status of objects? it's a curious problem. and resolving it ain't easy--trust me.

i see the tea parties as an expression of this pulverization, as a performance of it.
it doesn't surprise me at all that they're incoherent.

but the alarming thing within them--and you see it here too, particular through pan, who seems to think he's arguing for the opposite is the contempt for democracy, for democratic process. there's some remarkable quotes in the salon piece about this. how this tends to work is that the federal government, particularly the legislature, is subjected to a classically fascist critique--democracy is about the abstract, is about debate, is about blah blah blah: it cannot deal with a state of exception. a Leader, a Decider, is required in a state of exception. this was a basic element in the bush people's legal philosophy....the self-deception comes in the entire discourse of states as a viable alternative to the federal government, as if moving the process closer and multiplying its centers changes anything about the process itself. this is only appealing because at the moment it appears an alternative--but the fact is that you already know that it isn't the alternative you'd prefer to see because it already has a history and that history isn't much different from that of the federal government. no---the problem is debate itself, diversity of viewpoints itself. that tendency within the incoherence of the tea parties--and within what remains of the american right--is dangerous. it is classically petit-bourgeois fascist. that's why i am a cheerleader of conservative incoherence---if they gravitate toward something, looking at the options available right now, it'd be toward that. such is the danger of a ideological pulverization. it ain't pretty at all

anyway, enough of this self-indulgence.
i just thought i'd lay the cards down for a minute.

But it could be argued the bench is his office. I'm not a follower of the Abrahamic religions but to me, I would rather him have that freedom to express himself than not. So long as his rulings are made on actual fact and law and not his religion I'm not bothered by his display. I am far more bothered by the fact that he cannot have them up because the government says no.
The problem with this question is no matter how I answer it, experience here has shown that everything will then be how I answered it and my opinion not what is truly said or the whole of the debate over government having too much power.

In all honesty I do not believe there should be any law concerning marriage between 2 people. If they are that much in love who cares. That said, I still believe in a state's population to decide by vote. it is not a power expressly given the government in the Constitution. And, with the possible exception of Utah, it probably isn't in any state's constitution either. Therefore, it should be up to the people. Let the people decide.

Now, if the federal government wants to recognize insurance and retirement /SSI/etc benefits across the board that's fine. They aren't dictating who can or cannot be married to whom, just the rights of the marriage. Now, if I live in Ohio and want to marry a guy and have to go to Cali. to do it, when I get back to Ohio, I should understand that Ohio does not have to recognize that marriage and change my will. Now if I want a divorce, the state of Ohio may nor recognize the marriage but should dissolve the it as a partnership unless a prenup iss in existence then the court just allows the prenup and is done.



Yes, I am far more ok with the people having their voice heard than government dictation. If the government imposed smoking laws and refused to listen to the people, I'd fight it. But in Ohio, you have an overwhelming number of voters saying they do not want smoking in places they patronize. My rights stop when they affect others. Them voting for a ban on smoking tells me that they do not want to smell like an ashtray or be offended by the smoke. I can understand that. Going outside, while it maybe a hassle is an acceptable compromise I can live with. The voice of the people was heard in this case. If I want to smoke inside restaurants again, I can work on getting an initiative on the ballot and work for its passage. Someday, someone may do just that and that will pass and the power in that area stayed in the hands of the people.

I do not agree with everything people want, just as they I'm sure do not agree with everything I would want but I believe in the freedom of letting the people decide not the government.

Nice pictures. :thumbsup:

As a Ron Paul libertarian I'm kinda looking at these people and thinking 'where the hell where you the last 8 years, or even last fall when we had a chance to nominate a real libertarian/conservative?' Late is better than never, however. I'm not sure who started these but they have already been comprimised by right wing talking heads. Which makes me as a libertarian not wanting to associate with them (although I still might go). What seems to have been started by grassroots, has already been commandeered by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and numerous other talking heads and career politicians.

I about threw up listening to these guys on the radio telling the people what the tea parties are about and what should or shouldn't be allowed. Glenn was saying things like don't bring any signs and don't mention Obama. blah blah blah

Thanks. I've got about 70 or so, but I'm partial to the Sharks guy. He has the courage of his convictions!
I think the problem is that they were conceived by the compromise-ers themselves. This was never grassroots, at least in the same way most other protests are grassroots. Had it not been for the local conservative radio station, KSFO (owned by massive radio conglomerate Citadel Broadcasting, which is owned by Disney, I believe), the protest here in San Jose wouldn't have happened at all. There are similar stories popping up from the other Tea Parties.

BTW, did anyone go to the Alamo to see Beck try and explain the significance of the Alamo to the Tea Party "movement"? I'd love to see the mental gymnastics there.

Except he's a government employee, and he is serving the people in his capacity as judge, not running some entrepreneurial business.
It matters what impression government buildings give off, and favoring one type of religion over all others - whether or not it affects his rulings - does not mesh with the separation of church and state. This has no impact on how he lives his personal life, but as a government official who is responsible for judging people, he must at least give the appearance of impartiality. Not to mention that it's kind of absurd to claim the entire court as his personal office. Judges have personal offices: they're called chambers, and they do not include the entire courthouse, or even the courtroom. More importantly, let's look at this from a different angle: what if the judge wanted a Deuteronomy 22:20,21 or a Leviticus 20:13 monument instead of a 10 commandments monument? Is that OK, provided his rulings are based on fact and not hatred of women or homosexuals? I'd like to know if judges are allowed to express themselves in the court in all the ways a normal citizen can, or if there is some line. If there's a line, why are the 10 commandments - which explicitly demand worship of the Abrahamic deity, and outlaw even wanting (coveting) something that your neighbor owns - acceptable, but other things are not?

I ask about interracial marriage not as a trap, but to understand your logic regarding what government can and cannot do, and also to demonstrate the flaws in that logic as it has so far been described. You're expressing - quite unbelievably - a total support for the tyranny of the majority, which would include allowing states to outlaw interracial marriage. I'd like to know if you actually support a state's right to do this, or if there is some line in your head that makes outlawing interracial marriage unacceptable, but other rejections of individual rights more acceptable, particularly when neither is explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

I completely agree that government should not be involved in "marriage," but I'm not sure you are understanding that there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Your statement above seems to indicate that you believe them to be the same thing, but they are not. If a couple is married through a religious ceremony, there are two marriages that take place: the civil and the religious. Proponents of same-sex marriage could generally care less what restrictions religions place on marriage. The issue is whether or not the state has the right to limit the expression of love between two individuals based on their sex. Seeing as how the government is areligious, there is no valid argument for limiting individual rights in that manner. The confusion between civil marriage and religious marriage is why I believe the government should do everything it already does, extend those benefits to same-sex couples, and just rename marriage to unions for everyone. Regardless of the name, restricting civil marriage because religious marriage would be offended gives undue preference to a particular religious view. Whether or not that view is the majority doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally wrong for the government to restrict individual rights because of someone else's religious views.

It has been noted here before, but I specifically bring up and would like to know your thoughts on state's prohibiting interracial marriage because your arguments are just about the exact same as those which were used to defend miscegenation laws in the past. So I'd like to know what makes your stance different, if you do not support state prohibition of interracial marriage, or if you are willing to accept the consequences of such an argument and allow the development of oppressive states and more free states.

I'm still not clear on where you stand re: ballot initiatives vs the legislature. Should we abolish the legislature and put everything to a popular vote? If not, what kinds of laws are OK for the legislature and what kinds of laws do you think demand a popular vote? Bringing this back to the tea parties, when, if ever, is it acceptable for the elected representatives of the people to vote on spending money, and when must that spending be brought to a popular vote? After all, your primary complaint from what I can tell is that you feel your voice isn't being heard. I'd like to understand where you draw the line between being heard through electing a representative and demanding each individual voice be counted. How do you think the rights of minorities should be protected from an unfriendly majority? As far as I can tell, your answer is that they should just move to a different state. Am I missing something?

Finally, you believe in letting the people decide and not the government. Is the elected representative government not an extension of the people? If not, why do we have such government at all? So again, do you support ballot initiatives for all laws, or is there something I'm missing here? It seems to me that you're arguing for each state to be its own direct democracy, loosely tied together by a federal government which exists in name only. I'd like to understand if you're arguing for something else, and what the logic is behind that argument.

Again, that is an extreme. If the scenario you suggest were to ever happen, I think it should be a state issue, NOT a federal.

If he hangs the Commandments and the people elected him, that's all I care about. The people elected him. There are politicians that commit real crimes and get away with them, what he did was nothing compared to them.


And I answered that question, maybe not how you wanted but.... aw well. i answered it I'm done with it.

Marriage in the eyes of government is solely a business deal. The whole religious ceremony is for show or beliefs. (How people feel about marriage and what marriage is to them is irrelevant to how government should look at it.)

Therefore, when it comes to a divorce or dissolution it should be treated much like a business and civil union and nothing else.

This is pretty much a repeat of the second paragraph, I feel I did answer this, I'm sorry if I cannot answer it better for you.


Government's sole purpose is to protect and educate the people. Regulate businesses, have fair labor acts, support schools, maintain roads and if the people vote for it supply small business loans, student loans, etc. directly not through a third party and as those loans get paid back with interest the government makes money.

I think the rights of the minorities will still be protected through Constitutional laws. Plus, I am a firm believer people can govern themselves.

I must go to work but this I'll answer when I get home or tomorrow.

How does a discussion about tea parties turn into a debate about the 10 commandments in a courthouse?

It's the inevitable result of protests without a unifying cause.

284 posts and not no Goodwin yet?????

but we've got commandments.

Pan, being our resident tea party apologist, mentioned that situation as one example of his general argument in support of tea parties. It's either discuss the tea parties themselves (they happened, there were a decent but not particularly large number of people, they will likely have little impact, the end), or try to discuss particular complaints of our resident tea partier. Personally, the latter is more interesting to me, but please post new thoughts about the parties themselves if you have some. I just can't think of anything more to discuss on the topic other than parroting news reports about turnout, Fox News and Libertarian think tank fundraising, etc. If you can, please add your thoughts :)

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Actually, here's an interesting parrot of news:

Total 'tea party' participants nationwide? 225k. Perspective? 500k protested immigration crackdown. 400k in NY alone protested the Iraq war.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

I understand that. What I'm trying to get at is whether or not you think a state has greater authority to be discriminatory by nature of being a state rather than the federal government, so long as the majority of citizens in said state support the discriminatory action. This is comparing apples to oranges. Telling a judge he cannot publicly display the 10 commandments in a courthouse is not prosecuting him for a crime. Your answer was that you won't answer for fear of being misunderstood. It's a simple yes or no question, and it gets right to your argument of state's rights. You brought up gay marriage in this discussion, saying that the people of each state should decide whether or not it is allowed. I'm asking a very simple question to try and understand how this is different from allowing states to decide on interracial marriage. Like I said, the argument you're making so far is the same as the one that was made before states were forced to allow interracial marriage, so I'd like to understand if you allow for states to outlaw interracial marriage, or where you limit the majority will of the people.Completely agreed. So you're OK with states choosing to outlaw particular business deals between two men or two women because the majority of people in said state do not like such business deals?I'm not sure what divorce has to do with anything here. People can hardly fight for same-sex divorce before they're allowed same-sex marriage.

This section I find particularly interesting. So far, you've kind of stuck to a strict constructionist view of the federal government, arguing that the government does not have the right to impose same-sex marriage on states because that does not fall under its constitutional authority. Yet you want the federal government involved in education, which is also not in the constitution? Or am I misunderstanding and do you want each state to be 100% in charge of its own education, and the federal government with absolutely no involvement in education, either through money or other influence? Same with roads, can you clarify? Student loans? Those are definitely not in the constitution. I'm truly trying to understand here: why does the absence of mention in the constitution mean the federal government doesn't have the right to demand states perform and recognize same-sex marriage, but not restrict federal involvement with education, student loans, or construction and maintenance of roads?

And then there's that interesting clause, "if the people vote for it." I trust you will address this in your upcoming response regarding whether or not you are arguing for a direct democracy, because that's what it seems like again.

There are plenty of minority protections that have been passed as law but are not part of the constitution. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was also passed by elected representatives of the people, not by the people themselves. Does that mean it is invalid, since it is not part of the constitution and was also not directly voted on by the people?

I hope you can see how this all relates to the tea parties and your arguments here. Co-opting the imagery of the Boston Tea Party is a direct appeal to taxation without representation. Except there is plenty of representation in almost every facet of government. We elect alderman, mayors, county boards, county commissioners, state representatives, state senators, state attorney generals, state treasurers, governors, federal representatives, federal senators (which, by the way, originally weren't elected by the people), a president, and much more, all for the purpose of acting on our behalf. Now you're not happy with how those representatives are conducting business; I get that. And let's set aside for a moment that I don't fully understand what you do expect of the government. The fact is, we're not even 100 days into a new presidential administration and new Congress, all elected less than 6 months ago, and doing for the most part what they said they would, such as passing the largest ever middle-class tax cut for 95% of Americans, and you're acting like they're King George III. So I'm trying to understand your grievances and piece together how exactly you envision the government working. You defend the tea parties and say the government is overstepping its bounds, so I'm trying to piece together what you view those bounds to be. You say the government is not listening to the people, so I'm trying to see how exactly you believe the government should listen to the people. If you can't explain the difference between the majority of state citizens voting against same-sex marriage and the majority of state citizens voting against interracial marriage, when neither is protected by the US constitution, how can I expect you to explain how the recently elected representatives of the people are or are not listening to the will of the people, and how that will should be ascertained?

So, let me review for clarity. I'm not trying to trap you or anything of the sort. (That said, if it's a trap to say states have the right to outlaw interracial marriage, shouldn't that indicate it may not be a great idea to support that? And if you don't, what's so hard about explaining how it is different from same-sex marriage?) I'm trying to ask direct questions which have a specific point here. All I ask is that you give direct answers, and I'd be happy to do the same for you should you have questions of me. We may not come to any sort of agreement, but if you won't even give direct answers what's the point of airing your grievances? If you can't debate these opinions with a stranger on a message board, I can't see how you're going to convince any government representative.

1. Do you or do you not support a state's right to outlaw interracial marriage if the majority of that state's citizens want to? Yes or no. If not, please explain the difference between interracial and same-sex marriage, since neither is protected by the US constitution.

2. Presupposing that it's a state issue, is it equally OK for a judge to publicly display commandments which demand worship of a specific god and demand rule over one's thoughts (coveting) as it is for him or her to display commandments demanding wives be subservient to their husbands, or that homosexuality is an abomination, so long as the majority of people are OK with such displays? Yes or no. If not, why is one OK and not the other? If so, how can there be any faith that justice is blind in that judge's courtroom?

3. I realize you haven't gotten to this particular issue yet, but... Are you arguing for a direct democracy, with each law voted on by the people? Yes or no. If not, what kinds of laws should be directly voted on, and what kind of laws can be made by elected representatives? If so, how can minorities expect protection from the majority in each state, unless the majority of 3/4 of the other states step up in their defense for a federal constitutional amendment? Remember, even the Civil Rights Act is not a part of the constitution.

wait, what? what did the civil rights act of 64 do that the 13th and 14th Amendments didn't?

Outlawed segregation, Jim Crow laws, employment discrimination, etc. Not to mention, if the 13th and 14th Amendments were enough, we wouldn't have needed to pass the Civil Rights Act in the first place, we would have simply started enforcing the law more vigorously.

But seriously, didn't anyone else go? Smeth? Pan? Sam? Rek? Cynth? DK? Roach?

i'm fighting a cold with minimal success--if there had been one nearby i would have checked it out willingly, sniffles and all--but i felt kinda lousy last night and didn't feel like going to boston. same problem obtains today, which is why im here and not on my way to see acid mothers temple.

I may have forgotten to mention it before: I considered going, but decided it wouldn't be worth the time or costs of transportation. I'm not being snarky, it would have taken at least 45 minutes to get there, plus the time of the protest, plus at least 45 minutes back (and that's in good traffic), plus I'm getting over a cold.

I didn't even consider it...in fact, I didn't even consider whether there was a tea party in this area.
I must say this thread has been very interesting. I've been lurking like a son of a bitch...or the daughter of a bitch. Which would be more apropos...and true.
roachboy, I love you for your pimp juice. :)
I just drank a beer in about 90 seconds. Forgive my hit and run miasmapost. It's my Friday.
Good thread.

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

this is a good spot for an intermission

Force fluids, comrade. And I don't mean "pimp juice", whatever that might be.
Fair enough. Had the SJ Tea Party not been close I may have thought twice about going. Still, I'm glad I did. I've not debated a conservative in the flesh in years.

Also, I totally scored digits.

It's nothing but pure, unadulterated awesomeness. I am a hopeless fangirl. :p

Honest question: wouldn't putting things like education, police, whatever solely into the hands of the states (which, according to states-righters, would lower federal income tax significantly) make everyone's STATE income tax significantly higher?

Of course.

funny how no one ever mentions that part

why bother with reality when you can have theatuh!

Oh my local one isn't till saturday. As of right now I'm planning on going and bringing the video camera possibly.

couldn't have gone if I wanted to. I see plenty of demonstrations here in NYC so it wouldn't have fazed me much if I did go. Personally, I tend to avoid the crowds here in NYC if I can.

There's just too many people here most of the time, why do I want to be in a crowded small section?
How To Not Be A Douchebag Tourist In NYC : COED Magazine

It was a rainy/snowy mess here. I wasn't about to take off work to go watch a bunch of Mormon extremists complain about something that they likely don't even understand beyond a talking point.