dksuddeth

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

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".

Cynthetiq

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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I'm not talking about sustainability.

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dippin

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...."

The_Dunedan

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.

dksuddeth

THIS!!!!!!!

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

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.

Baraka_Guru

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).

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

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.

samcol

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.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dippin

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.

fresnelly

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.

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

Willravel

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.

fresnelly

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.

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

Willravel

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 ™.

Derwood

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

pan6467

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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Derwood

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.

ratbastid

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.

Willravel

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

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

"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.

pan6467

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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

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.

FoolThemAll

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.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

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

Derwood

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

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

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!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

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.":

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

silent_jay

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.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire