pan6467

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.

__________________
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?"

Rekna

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

Willravel

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

Cynthetiq

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

but we've got commandments.

__________________
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.

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"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

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Willravel

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

roachboy

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.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

mixedmedia

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

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

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.

mixedmedia

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

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Derwood

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?

Willravel

Of course.

Derwood

funny how no one ever mentions that part

mixedmedia

why bother with reality when you can have theatuh!

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

samcol

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

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

Cynthetiq

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

__________________
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.

Rekna

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.

Willravel

Aww, you guys had Mormons? Lucky. All we had were lower-middle class Republicans. The real Republicans in the area were all in their giant, beautiful, multi-million dollar homes or in their giant, beautiful, multi-million dollar offices (yes, yes, no true Scotsman...blah, blah).

ratbastid

Just so we're clear the level people are working at out there:

10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs (PHOTOS)

Tully Mars

I don't find this offensive...



I do find this offensive...

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

samcol

Wow those are offensive? I don't understand why the left wouldn't be mad about this insane tax and spend policy. They are basically stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. If they are going to be bailing people out at least give it to the little guy.

You do realize our children are going to be paying for this debt right? I don't see any gross fabrications or anything offensive besides maybe the white slavery one.

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

Derwood

These idiots always ruin it for everyone. Even though I don't really agree with the protests, I do feel some sympathy for those who were there with an earnest message but got drowned out in the white noise of idiot extremists and cable news sound bites

shakran

I don't understand why it's been ok for W to spend without taxing, driving the country into debt (and mandatory bankruptcy were it anything BUT the federal government), and yet now that everything has been broken almost beyond repair by W and his predecessors, it's wrong to try to fix it.

samcol

It's not ok, and that's my biggest complaint about the majority of the people who go to these tea parties. However, the government isn't issueing a fix they are solving the debt problem with more debt. They are taking people's hard earned money and handing it out to huge corporations and bankers with no oversight.

The notion of spending money that wasn't taxed is rather absurd. We are taxed for whatever the government spends regardless if it's directly or indiretly. We pay the inflation tax everytime the government runs up the debt and the value of the dollar drops. That hurts a lot and people don't mention that.

So whether or not its on the books as a tax isn't really an issue. We pay anyway. This inflation tax hits the middle and lower class the hardest who are the very people the government claims to be helping by spending all this money.

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

Cynthetiq

It wasn't okay. It still isn't okay.

Thomas Jefferson said it best (Sept 6, 1789):

"Then I say the earth belongs to each generation during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."

Inflation tax? I'm not understanding what that means. Are you referring to the increased costs of goods and services?

__________________
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.

Baraka_Guru

I take it you guys missed the ones about "Jews and ovens," "sucking Saudi jewels," and "What you talkin' about, Willis!"....

Am I right?

__________________
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

samcol

All government spending represents a tax. We owe the money whether or not we were directly taxed for it. It effects us directly by the decreased value of the dollars we have. This in turn hurts the people who are barely getting by when the cost of food and consumables goes up due to inflation. Here is a better explanation:

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

SecretMethod70

Quick note: The first image is from a slideshow of pictures from a professional photographer, not the "10 most offensive" slideshow. The "10 most offensive" signs were:

The above sign contained a photoshopped image of Obama as Hitler
Another sign contains the image of Obama slitting the throat of Uncle Sam.
This one is borderline, but I'm pretty sure this sign is not expressing support for gun ownership, but rather is expressing support for the taking up of arms "tomorrow."

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

roachboy

well, this is basically a philosophical problem--whether (a) you accept that there is in fact a global economic crisis
then (b) whether you connect that crisis to various elements of neoliberal/american conservative economic thinking
then (c) if you do make that connection, it follows that there is a PROBLEM with appealing to that economic thinking for remedies to the situation that thinking was instrumental in creating.

then there's a second matter: neoliberalism/american conservative economic thought is a PARTICULAR IDEOLOGY--so it's a particular theory about the economy, what the important relations are, how they interact.
if you see the obama administration as moving into a keynesian mode--which in many ways it is---what that means is there is a frame switch--so the state spending is NOT understood in the same way as it is for neoliberals. you could say that in a keynesian-type system the state acts to support and increase the amount of economic activity and uses tax resources (amongst others) to effect that--the idea then would be that the system in its aggregate movement would generate more revenues over time so that the debt acquired at one point would be resolved through the effects of state action.

this means that the entire conservative way of thinking about taxation, state spending, effects---and the relation of state spending at one point to any future point--is worthless for trying to parse what the obama administration is doing.

it seems to me that this is *the* problem that the right cannot get it's head around--and it explains to a significant extent why it cannot articulate anything like a coherent oppositional position that goes beyond "this freaks me out"

which is all the tea parties were saying.

another way--events have outstripped conservative economic thinking. one of the features shared across conservative positions is an unwillingness to relativize their own positions---that's why you get all these appeals to timeless values, the machinery of the economy blah blah blah.
they now confront a situation that by its own workings relativizes their position.
the right can't handle it.

you see it here.

but this is, at bottom, a philosophical question--that is political at its deeper sense---not a matter of actions following a sequence, but of the logic that shapes sequence. how do we debate this kind of dissonance if one crew is unwilling to accept the situation that the other assumes they're already in?

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

Sorry sam, that's what I thought you meant. It isn't a tax. It's a devaluation of the dollar. It doesn't equal in any dictionary or definition of tax. It is why the word tax is in quotes.

You can try to pawn it off as a tax, but it isn't in any way shape or form. This is again, why companies and now government institutions can get away with calling things FEES because the word tax is and has a very specific meaning.

The devaluing of the dollar on the other hand, is very different. It means something in the globalized marketplace. It means something when buying, selling, or contracting services/goods abroad.

The CPI tables don't hold up to what you are talking about for your "tax". Double digit inflation was back in the 79-81, but has been around 3% with spikes upward of 1%-2% on occassion.

__________________
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.

samcol

It's a financial burden on the American people directly due to government policy. I call that a tax and regardless of what it's called the effect is undeniable. The more the government spends the more we pay.

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

Cynthetiq

I agree that government spending is paid for by the citizens. The more the government spends, the more we pay. That's undeniable. BUT your claim that it is an INFLATION tax is a misnomer at best and poorly linked logically. You're premise is incorrect in saying it is tied to inflation or the devaluing of the dollar. You'll need to better explain it than some Ron Paul quotation.

__________________
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.

samcol

I think he makes it perfectly clear. Saying "inflation tax' is just the easiest way to talk about it without a paragraph explanation.

So are you really saying government borrowing and spending does not cause inflation and dollar devaluation, or am I confusing your post?

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

shakran

no, that's what W did in the first "bailout." I find it fascinating that we can accuse Obama of meddling with business by "firing" GM's CEO, yet claim there's no oversight with the bailout money. Obama never fired the CEO. He said "if you want this bailout money you're going to do something different with it, including firing the idiot CEO that got you where you are today." In other words, oversight.


Hence one of the reasons I'm anti-Republican.

Because it wasn't germane to my point. Yes I know we all suffer when the government borrows money from China. But that's not a tax. If it were a tax, the government would be getting money from it, but they aren't. They're only getting debt.

It is an issue, because for 30 years we've been sold the lie that we can have whatever government programs we want without having to pay for them in the form of taxes. It is /because/ of the "don't ever tax anyone for anything especially if they're rich" attitude that we have to borrow from China, and it is because of that attitude that we are in the mess we're in now, with an impoverished government, an impoverished populace, and and impoverished infrastructure. Yes, at this point, we have to spend money to fix things. That's going to hurt, true, but it won't hurt as much as if we slide into a depression and stay there forever because no money moves anywhere.


Ya know, I'm willing to bet you that the estimated 30 million Americans who will end up in the unemployment line by the time this thing is over would be willing to pay this "inflation" tax if it meant that they were working and earning the money with which to pay it.

Cynthetiq

I'm saying it isn't as alarmist as Mr. Ron Paul or you are claiming in your "inflation tax" argument.

I'd even agree with you that the 1990s saw marked less inflation because of globalization and getting cheaper products into markets thus delaying inflation a few points.

But the increased government spending hasn't created the same increases in the inflation index, and/or a decrease in the valuation of the dollar. In other words, the mechanical tie you are manufacturing with your words, I do not see in any correlation of statistics, graphs, or historical data. If this was the case, then the Bush II years would have been extreme inflation but it was not. I could continue to show other administrations and their spending correlated to inflation.

I'm asking you to show me in some manner rather than a paragraph statement.

__________________
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.

SecretMethod70

I just clapped to myself. Now I will go back to reading the rest of your post.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

dksuddeth

lets think about this, k? The US government, and at least 3/5ths of the states at that time, ratified both of those constitutional amendments. That should have been enough, right? Yet 100 years later, the federal government needed to make new laws to enforce parts of those amendments? in order to enforce the laws more vigorously? If we're only paying lip service to the supreme law of the land and need to actually create new laws just to enforce the constitution of the united states on it's own governments, what are we doing wrong?

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------

I'm the sole bread winner in my household. I couldn't afford to lose hours at work so I couldn't go.

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

First, not everyone thought it was ok,

Second, those of us that didn't like it or approve of it when W was doing it are of the same mindset now that O is doing it. If fixing something requires doing the same thing that broke it, then some engineering school is in serious order.

__________________
"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."