ace, dear....

i can continue to humor you as if your crackpot viewpoint is of something beyond anthropological interest. or i stop.

i think i'm going to stop.

Wait...it's a myth that there has been any deregulation? That in itself requires subscribing to some kind of mythology.

Well, regulation really started to kick in during the 19th century as a response to such things as child labour and it being virtually impossible to enter a market due to gigantic monopolies. But a lot had happened since then and throughout the 20th century. Since Reagan, many changes have occurred that can be described as deregulation on the industry level. My point isn't to state whether it's good or bad in and of itself, but it is merely to state that how it happened in the U.S. since Reagan helped along the concentration of wealth.

I agree. I support reasonable and responsible regulation. I will also point out, however, that regulatory practices that are too lax is a danger as well. Just look to the history.

I don't see anywhere that prohibits the government from doing this.

I'm going to agree with The_Dundean on this, that the 10th amendment prohibits it. The Constitution does grant the federal government the right to impose taxes, but does not grant the government the right to force people to pay arbitrary fees. Obama has gone to great lengths to claim his mandatory health care payments are not a tax, so Obama loses.

If I remember right, this is the basis for several law suits that the Supreme Court will get to choose from when deciding this.

So now it's your turn. Exactly where does the Constitution prohibit repealing or canceling an entitlement program?

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

If the government can't figure out how to make it work without the taxpayer paying for it, then forget it. I'm not responsible for other's health care and they are not responsible for mine.

The Constitution specifically directs Congress to maintain an army and a navy. Police, fire dept, schools, etc, I think that's up to the states. I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the federal government must provide them, and the federal government generally doesn't run them.

Roads, and other facilities may as well be private systems. We already at least partly pay for them on a user fee basis with toll roads and gas taxes. Maybe they will be run more efficiently.

Here in NY, one major toll road is the New York State Thruway. God forbid that there's even a bump in the pavement because the next day there will be a squadron of state highway construction trucks out fixing it. There might be six inches of snow on every other road in the state, but there won't be a snowflake to be seen on the Thruway because there's a squadron of snowplows continually circling their assigned region plowing and salting the road to death.

I think the last time the NY Thruway was closed was in 1969, thanks to the Woodstock concert. :-)

Are there any bumper magnets that say "I support our troops unless they're risking their lives in the branch of the military not in the Constitution"?

Dogzilla
I think I benefit from having generally healthy neighbors, it's like sharing cost for public schools, I benefit from living in a community of educated people.

would you prefer to live with uneducated sick people ? I remember you saying (I think) you had lived in a sketchy neighborhood at one time, well, it'd be nice I think if lower income neighborhoods didn't need to mean lack of education, violence, alcoholism drug use and trafficking broken homes, etc. don't you think ? shouldn't people be able to make it ok on lower income levels ?

it's like paying community 'rent'

people are also obliged to buy auto insurance, to protect the other guy at least, well I'd like to be protected from catching cold or flue from people who can't afford to stay home when they are sick...or how about polio or any other heinous sickness that could go epidemic, with that in mind, it becomes a matter of national security.

health care has always been about an economy of scale, so I just don't see why single payer wouldn't be a good thing ? I mean there's still private schools for those that can afford and prefer that. and our state colleges paid for partly by tax payers do tons of pie in the sky research so it's not like public (non profit) medicine has to be all bottom line and basic. I mean geez, this America (that's a good thing right ?) we do have a sense of pride and competition in the world, or we used to.

Just how does the government make it work without taxpayer money, Dogzilla? The days of CIA drug monies are waning.

I quoted you slightly out of & fully in context.

You have fully admitted you would partake of any medicare benefits,
cuz...YOU paid for them, and you are owed.

I doubt that you have grasp on the pooling
of these taxes that are set aside for medicare, SC,& SC disability claims.

It's almost as if you believe that there is separate account just for you,
that's been approved somehow, because it's so darn obvious that you
are not one of: Those Gimme Gimme Fraudulents.

If you go back & read that Rolling Stone article,
that is one big fat glaring mindset that the author exposes.

I live in government housing for the elderly & disabled.
Much of the banter that hovers above the bingo tables is vile & ironic.

They got theirs & they justify it. They are morally pure & deserving,
no where near like: "Those nigger heathens/white trash sluts & their brats."

So can I assume that in addition to prohibiting setting up a public option or single payer system, since those are not explicitly granted in the constitution, that you will also be demanding the government completely and totally dismantle the USAF? Executive Orders? Executive Privilege? What about Paper Money?

What I think is amazing is that any public policy that is progressive gets the "stay away from mah money" reaction, but the ones that are regressive don't.

Police, national security, foreign affairs, regulating the financial system are all things that benefit those with more assets more than those with less, and yet you don't get the same "get yer paw outta mah money" with those.

Which is my main problem with the American libertarian movement. If the state is oppressive, go all the way and become an anarchist. Don't stop midway and go "no, i like the state protecting me here."

No you're right. You said-

I saw selfish and read greedy. My bad.

The fact we, the US, consumes so much of the worlds total production is a problem. Especially when it comes to oil. We're committing suicide by doing so and it's time for a dramatic change. Maybe that's what we've become- a me, me, me society but it's not our history. I think it's time to get back to working together.

---------- Post added at 07:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------

Well lets follow the constitution then and get rid of the Air Force. There's no mention of it so it must not be allowed either. Hell the money saved on jet fuel alone will help greatly in balancing the budget.

and...

How can the government do anything without tax payer funds? I mean I know the conservative answer of late is borrow and spend but anyone with a visa card should be able to see that not going to work long term.

Just move the Air Force back to a branch of the Army like it was in the first place. That solves that problem as well as the ridiculousness of eliminating an essential element of the military. I presume you wouldn't appreciate being a ground soldier with no air protection.

In which case we don't have a public option.

Obama has been setting new records in borrowing and spending in case you haven't noticed. At least until we take away his credit card in a month.

I think the ridiculous part is assuming the constitution was written with the intent it never be changed or amended.

Look at the data and I think you'll see since Reagan the right has been increasing and perfecting the borrow and spend method of funding government.

It wasn't supposed to never be changed or amended. It was -supposed- to be left alone until a -big- important change needed making...and then a process for making that change was provided. It's called the Amendment process, and it's difficult, expensive, and time-consuming for a damned good reason. The Constitution is a contract between the Government and its' Constituents, and no half-decent employment contract allows the Employee (the Gov't, who badly needs to be reminded of this) to continually make changes to the terms of employment while giving The Boss (that'd be us, the American people) the finger and demanding the right to go through the till at any given moment.

Look at the data and I think you'll see that this is why GOP "establishment" candidates have been taking a ferocious beating so far this year. You're entirely correct about this, and people are -pissed-.

Who gets to decide what is a "big important" issue?

I think you're right and a lot of what we're seeing is people on the right being pissed at the spending. But there's a lot of loony mixed into that. I was in the US two weeks ago and saw several tea protests, somewhere between 8 and maybe 10. They all seemed to be in front of post offices, I have no idea why. Every protest I saw had signs like this-

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/...94dfb5bd_m.jpg

This one was in Nehalem Oregon. On one side it reads "Stop the spending and big government!" The front reads "Save the military, impeach Obama" And of course you can read the side I managed to get a shot of reads "Save NASA, impeach Obama" All complete with picture showing Obama with a Hilter type mustache. I didn't talk to these people, too much traffic and there was a road crew trying to paint lane lines. But every group I saw had signs calling for smaller government less spending... but save the military and or NASA. Isn't the military and NASA big government spending? And to show the POTUS as Hitler or as I saw at other protest sites with a bone through his nose is beyond offensive. I stopped and spoke with 4 or 5 people at different sites. All seemed to have the same talking points. "Obama's a terrorist and a Muslim." "Obama hates white people." "Obama's a socialists." "We need to send him back to Africa." Etc, etc, etc...

Prior to my trip I was willing to believe the tea party folks were largely not racists. Now I'm not buying that, least not the tea party of Oregon. And after speaking to the group in Salem and finding out they we're getting their signs for free from some PAC out of Sacramento, Ca I suspect the racism extends nationwide.

Anybody who can get enough votes to satisfy the requirements of the Amendment process. The point is that the process itself is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. The idea is to make it such a pain in the ass to change the Constitution that, for an issue to even -reach- that level, it's big and important by default.

Of course, Statists/Collectivists of both stripes long ago gave up on following the rules of the document/contract they swore to uphold and defend. They find it much easier to simply ignore the Constitution's strictures. After all, the only way to get a law, statute, punishment or ordinance definitively thrown out as unconstitutional is to get it alllllll the way up to the Supreme Court, which process is difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and rigged. By -that- time, the law has had its' intended effect, and the SCOTUS is notoriously unwilling to strike down Federal laws, programmes, etc. Sometimes they're a little less accommodating to State Gov'ts and cities, but only sometimes and only just.

Tully, this is so commonly said by the....left....and it is simply untrue.

We have a very poor man who walks door to door on our street and works day labor. Several days a week, someone employs him for $85/day to mow the grass, trim the bushes, paint the shed, etc. We sometimes split a day with another family if we can't give him a day's work. He's a proud man and wants to live a dignified life. It's been this way for years. In the evening, he takes the bus home. Sometimes, one of us will drive him home if the last bus has run.

This year he had a massive heart attack - dying, EMS, Emergency Room, the works. He goes to the hospital, which in our city just happens to be a premiere cardiovascular hospital. He gets a quadruple bypass done by the same doctor who did my friend's dad. This doc is one of the top 10 in the country. Anyway, Randy spent 2 months in the hospital due to a bad reaction to the drugs and such. After two months it was safe to discharge him, and over time, he's gone back to working.

Guess how much Randy has paid to have a top ten heart surgeon save his life and two months in the hospital? You know the answer - not a penny. He got the best possible care that hospital had to offer, no different than the care you or I would have received.

To use a simple example, if a 70 mph speed limit is reduced to 65 mph, there has not been deregulation. Regulators, simply decided to change a regulatory rule. If there is a stretch of road with no regulatory signs, like a stop sign, and one is added, regulations increased for those who drive on that road. I have not seen a situation where something was regulated and it became deregulated. I may be wrong, I just can not think of anything.

Industry regulation isn't the same thing as traffic engineering. Let's keep on topic. If a government either removes or simplifies rules/regulations/restrictions within an industry, it's called deregulation.

I'm not sure I understand all of your post. You and your neighbors pay some homeless man $85 a day to do chores?

How or who paid his medical bills? If it was paid for by the government then we must have national health care covered so why are we all debating this issue?

If you're trying to say that children in the US do not die due to lack of health care coverage John Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore et el disagree with you.

it was an example, since it is beyond the scope of this thread to go into the details of any specific industry there is a need to use simplified examples.

By the way trucking is an industry, and traffic regulation plays a material role. In fact there is a relatively new economic indicator based on diesel fuel purchases.

Backgrounder: Ceridian-UCLA Pulse of Commerce Index

Oh, I'm well aware of trucking (and transportation) as an industry. But your examples served to pinpoint something very specific when I'm actually pointing to wider implications of the term deregulation in the context of government controls and industry practices. Can we refer to the term as it is commonly known?

tully,

My point in describing my relationship with this man is to enforce the fact that this is first hand knowledge. This isn't the "my brother's best friend's uncle worked at a hospital who knew a guy who came in and..."

For clarity, Randy is not homeless. He rents a room from a church. As for his bills, I could not pretend to know the exact details of how the hospital absorbed his medical bills. I could presume they were written off as an unpaid debt and that, consequently, those who receive treatment pay a higher premium for that treatment which "covers" his expenses. The fact of the matter is that, upon admission, they asked for his insurance. He didn't have any - and one look at him would tell you he couldn't afford to pay for a quad bypass. They treated him anyway - with the best possible care.

As for your assertion: the link provided had the information I needed to better understand where you were coming from. Now that I understand where you are coming from, I concede that my story doesn't have much relevance to your point.

I agree with you that a lack of health insurance coverage means that children with preventable issues don't get picked up in annual checkups and become serious health problems.

I also agree that we should suspend ALL financial contributions to all foreign nations until our national debt is paid off and our citizens have the care our government previously committed to them (whether I agree if that's in their purview or not.) However, that means not a penny of federal money to Haiti, Somalia, the UN, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Are you okay with that?

Interesting story. I don't question it's truth. I would question how often that happens. Having worked with low income and no income people as a parole and probation officer I can say that's not the experience I'm used to seeing with the US health care system. What I'm used to seeing is people visiting the ER for just about everything since they can not be turned away for treatment. But that treatment is limited to making the patient stable not curing anything or long term care. Heck I've had guys on my caseload beg me not to release them from closed custody because they have a serious illness and on the street they will not be able to afford their medication(s.) Of course the answer to that is when the parole board says you leave... you leave.

I think your friend was very lucky. He may also have a collection agency or two after him. Of course if he has no reported income they'll have a hard time collecting.

It's not just children. Many people fall into a gap where they make enough to not qualify for low income assistance. The US has the ability to provide the best medical care in the world. Many people do not have access to that care solely due to lack of ability to pay.

Providing assistance to other countries should be way down on our priority list in my opinion. Should it be zero? Maybe, I don't know. I certainly think we should be taking care of our own people prior to trying to assisting other countries. From my point of view most of the time the US provides funding to other countries it comes with a price tag and often comes back to bite us in the ass. I mean we helped fund and train OBL and the Taliban when they were fighting off the Russians. Right now the US is providing Mexico with funds to help fight the "war on drugs." Under a plan called the "Mérida Initiative" the US has agreed to give the Mexican government something like 400 million to fight drug trafficking. It got it's name from the city where Bush and Calderón worked out the details of the plan in 2007. I live in Mexico. I was in Mérida yesterday. I have little doubt giving the Mexican government money and thinking it will have any positive affect is dreaming. If I had to guess I'd say at least 50% of any help provided goes directly to the drug gangs or people paid off by them. As long as there is a demand for drugs in the US there will be people ready to supply that demand.

All that said do I think we should help out during a natural disaster such as the Christmas day tsunami? Yes, but so should all other nations.

92% of Americans prefer socialism over US system

what !?!? BURN THE WITCH !!
AMERICAblog News: 92% of Americans prefer socialism over US system

Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality, Support 'More Equal Distribution Of Wealth': Study

here is the study PDF
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/no...in%20press.pdf

400 Richest Americans Got Richer This Year, As Most Americans' Net Worth Tanked: Forbes

I'm shure they worked for every penny ! someday I'll get there too, just keep my nose to the grindstone here...I'll get there ! :thumbsup:

More good stuff from Matt Taibbi

I wondered about Miller when he was asked about ending SS and then it was pointed out his parents are on SS. He kind of balked and said something that basically amounted to "well they need it, but it needs to be phased out." I guess when his family no longer needs help from the evil government then these program should be killed. Of course with 8 kids that may take a while. He's also claimed the porks got to stop. That seems like a bold statement in state that receives more pork then any other.

We have to start somewhere, and no politician is perfect. Heck, the cowardly democrats refused to have any kind of trial for Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. Then there's the list of Obama's cabinet appointees that somehow thought they were exempt from paying income tax.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stated they were going to 'drain the swamp' and failed dramatically, so now the American public is going to help them do that.

If it takes candidates like this to shut down Obama's crazy spending programs, well, it's a start.

Since I've not taken a penny from any federal or state entitlement program in my adult life, I have no problem with eligibility for these programs being tightened up.

All three of my Congressional reps are up for re-election this year. Three votes against them. 100% guaranteed. Obama and the Democrats have to go.

Seem odd to start "somewhere" by replacing these hypocrites with other hypocrites.

:orly:

One of the most significant features of the ethic reforms that the Democrats enacted in 2007 (with no Republican support) was the creation of the quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

As a result, for the first time ever, ethics charges could be raised and investigated without having to rely on the Ethics Committee itself to initiate an action, which if one looks back throughout history rarely occurred (most recently, many of the Republicans who were charged with crimes in the Abramoff scandal never faced an Ethics Committee investigation).

It was through the actions of the OCE that Maxine Waters is facing an investigation.

What will happen to the OCE, if Boehner were to become Speaker:
Like the campaign finance reform act passed by the House Democrats earlier this year (and blocked in the Senate), this 2007 ethics reform act does not go far enough.

But, I am of the opinion that even small incremental steps to correct abuses are better than the status quo in both cases.

I fully expect if there is a Speaker Boehner there will be impeachment investigations. To expect otherwise is highly naive.

I don't see that happening.

Think of how galvanized the Republican base was when President Clinton was dragged before the people and treated like trash under the minor pretense of lying under oath about having an extramarital affair. That destroyed for many people all that President Clinton built up, all the successes he had. And it was utter bullshit, of course. Bush won (well, he was actually chosen, but he did get a lot of votes) partially because the Republicans had convinced the people that Democrats, especially those associated with Clinton, were somehow more immoral than Republicans.

Imagine that in 2012. Imagine birth certificate investigations or smoking weed in college and the rest of the circus returning, and then Mitt Romney or some other white-bread Republican running on family values and religious morality in 2012 coming out swinging. President Obama would have a real fight on his hands whereas now he is the clear front runner against all contenders.

Oh I have little doubt they (GOP) will do all kinds of nasty ass BS to make Obama's life a living hell. I just don't see impeachment in the mix.

They don't need impeachment, they just need to pull America from the fires of socialism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us...1&pagewanted=1

sorry if this has been posted already.

I agree that impeachment hearings would be highly unlikely. Thats not to say that some of the new Tea Party crowd wont introduce impeachment resolutions....they just wont reach the level of Judiciary Committee hearings.

The real issue is subpoena power...a power that is limited to the chairman of committees.

Darrell Issa, the current ranking member of the House Govt Oversight Committee has already said he would flood the administration with subpoenas if he assumes the chairmanship....on everything from the stimulus bill and health reform bill to alleged White House ties to ACORN and the White House role (wtf?) in the British "Climategate" controversy.

Much like the last Republican chairman of that committee who issued around 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration between 1994 and 2000 (including a subpoena of the records of Socks, the Clinton cat and the Vince Foster suicide- murder by Hilary's cohorts!)...as opposed to the less than 50 subpoenas issues of the Bush administration in 2007-08 by Henry Waxman.

If what you describe above is an abuse of subpoena power, did democrats abuse subpoena power when Bush was in the WH?

What I said then was that Bush needed to defend executive privilege and maintain a proper balance of power with Congress. I seem to recall many here saying the Bush administration was being the most secretive in history and actually abusing his power - although most President's aggressively defended their executive powers when challenged. I fully expect, and I would want the Obama administration to do the same thing. It is far to easy for Congressional leaders to overstep the boundaries for short-term political gain. The integrity of the office of President needs to be preserved regardless of who is President. The voters will resolve any problems or affirm the administrations agenda in 2012.

ace....Bush's claims of executive priviliege far exceeded any recent president, going back at least to Reagan.

Those before Bush limited such claims to direct communications between the president and subordinates in the White House and executive branch.....based on the court's ruling re: Nixon.

Bush claimed executive privilege for ANY communications between ANY senior policymakers ANYWHERE in the executive branch, regardless of whether the president was personally in the loop. His claims never reached the court, but based on the Nixon precedent, would, IMO, have been denied.

I agree with you that executive privilege (communications between a president and subordinates) has to be protected....but so does checks and balances.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

In the two years, 2007-08, I dont know of any example where the Democrats abused the power in a manner similar to the Republican subpoenas of Clinton.

Perhaps you have examples of those you think were an abuse of power.

We've been through many examples during Bush's term, feel free to do a search. But, just to refresh your memory we disagreed on the dismissal of US Attorneys and the investigations that followed. If Obama fired US Attorneys, I would support his right to do so and I would stand against a politically charged investigation. Another involved the Valerie Plame investigation.

I am consistent on these issues, during the Clinton administration I thought the Starr investigation leading to the Lewinski controversy and the impeachment was an abuse of Congressional power. At the time I even changed my party affiliation to Libertarian, in part, for that reason. I wonder if the folks on your side will be consistent if Republicans gain control in Congress?

ace...you didnt address the issue of the different approaches to executive privilege by Bush and his predecessors...by attempting to apply it to any executive branch communications between any officials and not just the president.

In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys. That was never in dispute. It was the manner in which it was done, including members of the administration potentially lying under oath (suggesting reasons for firing related to performance and willfully and falsely demeaning the reputation of the attorneys) during the hearings.

In the Plame case, you really think a communication between Rove and Libby, and not involving the president directly, should be covered by executive privilege? I dont and I dont think the courts would either, but the administration plan was not to test the limits, but to stall until they left office.

Both of the above involved potential criminal offenses and IMO, were legitimate areas of investigation and subpoena.

In any case, Bush's broad claims of executive privilege were excessive...at least in terms of all other recent presidents and I would hope Obama would be more in line with the Reagan/Clinton approach.

And I would hope the incoming Republican majority, if that is the case, is more in line with the Democrats issuing less than 25 (I said 50 earlier, that was wrong) subpoenas of Bush administration in two years than the previous Republican issuing nearly 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration in five years.

I am not sure what you want. The issue is not a new one. Each time the issue has come up the circumstances have been unique.

Did the President terminate them? I thought it was done in the line of command. If the President had discussions on the topic or gave his o.k., that is his prerogative. The conditions of employment for the US Attorneys as I understand it, is "at will", meaning they can be terminated without cause.

There should not have been hearings on the issue. In hind-sight it is now clear Congress should have focused on more important issues.

Yes. Even though what happened to Plame was "big boy" politics at its worst, she engaged in the game and I consider her to be a sophisticated participant, not a victim. You don't just walk up to a grizzly bear and punch it in the nose and think you can walk away with no consequences.

Libby fell into a perjury trap, I would suggest Obama administration officials avoid the b.s. Libby was subjected to - plead the 5th, claim executive privilege or simply give vague responses, whatever to avoid the trap. All of your arguments used for the action against Libby, can easily and will most likely be used against Obama administration officials. I thought it wrong with Libby and will think it will be wrong if done in the future.

I would error on the side of protecting WH communication, period.

I believe in probable cause as opposed to blind fishing expeditions looking for criminal activity and I never support set ups or sting type operations - in a broader sense I find that to be an abuse of government power. Any citizen can fall victim to the power of the government under those circumstances. the government can always find something, I don't care who you are.

We disagree regarding Bush. I will maintain my same view on the subject in the future with Obama or others in the WH.

The number is not relevant, one can lead to a stand-off and a true test of the balance of power. And if it is one, I expect any sitting President to defend executive privilege. The integrity of the office, national security and other issues are at stake.

{added}

I am curious on you view of the Justice Dept. handling of the alleged Black Panther voter intimidation case? Should this matter be further investigated? Were political considerations involved in decisions made on how this matter would be handled? Was administration officials involved in any decisions? At what level? How would we know? Should administration people be put under oath?

Ace..nevermind.

Once again, you avoid the questions posed and go off on tangents.

No, it is not a "me" problem, it is a "you" problem. I responded to each of your points, starting by clearly stating that I did not understand what you were looking for, normal people interested in a true dialogue would have used that as an opportunity to clarify - you did not, it was your choice, your issue. I concluded long ago, that when you get stumped and frustrated with your inability to respond - you try to make it a problem with me or you play the victim role. Sometimes the truth hurts and often it is a good thing when friend or even a foe is willing to share painful truths. Good luck.

Ace, its no problem.

I just find it amusing that you consistently fall back on the "I don't understand" defense when someone with whom you disagree posts factual information that is contrary to your understanding and attempt to divert the discussion with unrelated questions of your own....and not just with me.

Its quite simple...the facts are not disputable. In recent years, the Republicans have taking extreme positions in both the White House and Congress (when in the majority) when it comes to checks and balances between the branches of government. Even you should be able to understand this.

Bush, with claims of executive privilege that were far more sweeping than any other president ever by including ANY communications between ANY high level administration officials....and probably unconstitutional.

And the Republican majority Congress in the Clinton years with more than 1,000 subpoenas of the administration.....far more than the handful by the Democrats in Bush's last years or anytime previously.

In both cases, their acts tipped the scales of checks and balances away from previous and accepted practices.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

added:

What would be funny about many of the Tea Party backed Republican candidates if it were not so alarming to the extreme would be their professing to restore Constitutional values when in fact they only demonstrate their ignorance of the Constitution.

Now this is interesting.

Tea Party Vow to Police Vote Fraud Is Called Scare Tactic – NYTimes.com


Is this voter vigilantism? Is it widespread? Is it going to be over the next few days?

so it appears that not only is the financial network that's taken shape and animates the idea of the tea party made up entirely of the same old deep pockets far right political operatives that have been behind the other "new" rights since the clinton period, it is seems that the tea party itself doesn't actually do too much.....

read on:

washingtonpost.com


but it also seems that there's more to the accusations of racism than sympathizers would have one believe.


it's astroturf.

why on earth is anyone taking these people seriously?
why is there **any** danger of a shift to the right?

partly the failure of the obama administration to be clear and consistent about it's message.
partly the gain-power-at-any-cost approach of the right/far right.
partly the illusion generated by the conservative media that the tea party is more than an astroturf movement.

but another thing seems to be fear about what's happening, fear about the future---deep structural change and ideological problems piled one atop the other...

washingtonpost.com

and a political/discursive universe that's been constructed around managing opinion rather than around democratic process.

Some teapartiers near me have recently begun bringing this up and quoting it:

Shadowex3,

While I have no doubt, the tea partiers that you saw were quoting this exact text, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that that text is not what was read into record in 1963. I wouldn't know how to prove that, but I would love to get you the actual text so you could hand it to them and go, "Guys...this is what was said. That shit is just made up."

None of this should come as a surprise.

cimmaron--i can see why that'd make you uncomfortable, given that the john birch society is part of your conservative american heritage. but if you search on the title of that lovely bit of hysteria, you'll find that it's real (anything can get read into the congressional register by a congressperson who is so inclined, and the ultra-right is sadly not new) and it's making the tea party rounds.

consider it a gift from daddy koch.

Woah! How many doughnuts did you bet? I owe you. Maybe it is the current political arena, but I just thought some of them sounded too....modern, perhaps? I tried searching for it on Snopes and truthorfiction, and couldn't find it so I gave up.

I guess I'll back up a step and say, I'd love to see those items listed in some 1963 Communist Manifesto. Me thinks Mrs. Nordman may have used some artistic license. I just don't believe the Communists were so thorough in enumerating the steps to their diabolical plan! :)

Edit: Number 23, for example. Really? That was a part of the plan?

haven't you read any early 60s bircher literature?

it's hilarious.

and it'd still be funny were it not the case that the same nitwit sensibility had crawled back out from under some rock, with the full support of the grand old party, now a fine institution of good ole amurican red-baiting as an indication of the pathetic situation the right should, by ANY rational calculation, find itself in as a result of its own bloody appalling record of holding power.

I went to a gun show a year or so ago and some ya-hoo with a booth shoved a pamphlet in my face that had stuff like this. Basically, I took it to a party and we all sat around drinking beer and reading it out loud. Some of it had us falling out of our chairs with laughter. I don't think it was John Birch Society though. These guys are always there and they get a booth in the middle of an aisle center so that you HAVE to walk past them. Honestly, I don't understand how they get in there. The booths are always full (which implies the organizers could be selective) and they don't sell anything - they just throw a magazine at you and try to recruit you. They are so out of place.

If I go to the show in the spring (and remember) I'll look to see who it is and report.

Admittedly, you hear a lot of whispers at shows of the bogeyman taking guns - but this literature is exponentially worse. Coincidentally, I just received my 50th copy of the S.B. 2099 hoax. This thing has been going around for 10 years now.

It's been a few years since I've read the Communist Manifesto in high school, but I don't remember them having those goals. Now, communism in theory and communism in practice are two different things, yet if some country actually did it right with modern technology, support from the people, and no Cold War, it might work. We have to look at how the Native Americans lived, yet prevent the tribe/gang mentality that leads to problems.

it isn't marx. it's some country yahoo hallucinating what he imagines marx to have said. that doesn't mean some bircher didnt manage to get it read into the congressional record. and that it's in the congressional record only means that someone read it into the congressional record. it coulda been at 2 in the morning with a tape recorder in attendance. probably was.

i'm not quite sure where the "hoax" part comes in.
i have books on my shelf about 10 feet from me from the early 60s written by bircher schizophrenics that say close to the same thing.
it's about the particular hallucinations of the john birch society. it's about the fast-and-loose-with-the-facts world of the american right. straight line.

Oh, sorry: S.B. 2099 is a somewhat famous hoax email undoubtedly written by some Bircher which states that there is a bill currently before Congress which will require you to register all your guns on your 1040 annually and that you will have to pay $50/year for each one.

It is a bunch of partial truths. There was a similar bill called S 2099 which went to a Senate committee in 2000 and has remained in committee since. It will never leave committee. The point is only that it would be impossible to deny that fear mongering similar to the 1963 record is still generated in different forms.

well, it's not my favorite hoax. my favorite claimed that metallica wanted to copyright the chord change E major F major. it said that this was their signature and anyone else using it would confuse their fans.

i thought that it was a hoax when i heard that the family of john cage was trying to enforce copyright on cage's 4'33" because, if taken to a limit, it meant that if you did nothing for 4'33" you owed the cage family royalties. but that was not a hoax. at the same time, you need to actually perform the piece 4'33" to owe royalties. you can't accidentally owe them. or something.

Doesn't anyone find it significant that as recently as three years ago, Christine O'Donnell wasn't trimming her pubes?

Not really, no.

It's finally time to lay to rest the proposition that the Tea Party is only about fiscal issues.

2010 Tea Party Candidates Elected On Jobs - Give Us 916 Anti-Abortion Bills - National atheism | Examiner.com

Tea Party Leader: We'll Take The Debt Ceiling Hike If You Put Gay Troops Back In The Closet | TPMDC

Attacking women's rights and gay rights, the Tea Party demonstrates conclusively and for all time that it's nothing but a Republican party in a stupid costume. Not even the most hard line Tea Party supporter can deny the simple truth now.

I'll be happy when this chapter in American history is closed. I'd be even more happy if this were omitted from the book altogether.

I suppose most countries have their "National Front"....

French National Front leader says Tea Party more extreme | Women's Views on News

Note to the author: it's best to digress only when you have something intelligent to say.

BUT I DIGRESS.

Can't argue with the thread's general sentiment anymore. The Tea Party is far too diluted if it ever was pure enough. I'd still likely choose their candidates over Republicans or Democrats, but I can't pretend that means much.