Reminds me of when I had an argument with my libertarian Aunt over whether the Constitution was a living document and if the constitution was so perfect why did it have to be amended :-p. She responded by saying she believed women should never been given the right to vote, because the country went down hill soon after. Not sure how you respond to a person who wants to disenfranchise herself.
Holy crap, your relatives are cra~zy! Besides, what happened that was "worse" after 1920, anyway? If anything, America became more powerful. I mean, sure they had the Depression a decade after the 19th amendment was ratified, but I hardly think that was the fault of ladies casting their ballots.
Reminds me of when I had an argument with my libertarian Aunt over whether the Constitution was a living document and if the constitution was so perfect why did it have to be amended :-p. She responded by saying she believed women should never been given the right to vote, because the country went down hill soon after. Not sure how you respond to a person who wants to disenfranchise herself.
Holy crap, your relatives are cra~zy! Besides, what happened that was "worse" after 1920, anyway? If anything, America became more powerful. I mean, sure they had the Depression a decade after the 19th amendment was ratified, but I hardly think that was the fault of ladies casting their ballots.
Moreover, if it was somehow shown to be objectively "worse" how is that a direct effect of women voting? This is a classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Also, your family is crazy and your Aunt doesn't understand Libertarianism.
Also, your family is crazy and your Aunt doesn't understand Libertarianism.
Neither do Libertarians. More and more, the party is being co-opted by people who want only to weaken the federal government in order to establish their crazy, ultra-conservative, theocracies under the veil of "states' rights."
Also, your family is crazy and your Aunt doesn't understand Libertarianism.
Neither do Libertarians. More and more, the party is being co-opted by people who want only to weaken the federal government in order to establish their crazy, ultra-conservative, theocracies under the veil of "states' rights."
It is very true. Many people now view the Libertarian party as Republicans that want to legalize marijuana. While I am not a libertarian, it is sad to see a party co-opted when it did make some valid points at one time. Historically, smaller parties are usually brought into - or some of their issues are brought into - one of the two major parties as they convince the public of there case. When a party like this (or the Green party which has similar issues) moves so drastically away from a cohesive message/following, they might as well not exist.
Reminds me of when I had an argument with my libertarian Aunt over whether the Constitution was a living document and if the constitution was so perfect why did it have to be amended :-p. She responded by saying she believed women should never been given the right to vote, because the country went down hill soon after. Not sure how you respond to a person who wants to disenfranchise herself.
Wait...what? A Libertarian that wants to remove the right to vote from women?
She didn't really say "take away a women's right to vote" as she said that granting them the right to vote radically changed the government over the long term. She argued that the role of government became more of a "parental supportive" role and grew in size once women were granted the right to vote. Which moved the constitution away from it's strict interpretation. She's actually is not a religious person (a bit new age though) and I doubt she would want to have her right to vote taken away now. Her point was to say that as a "government should butt out of my business libertarian, it seemed to have gone down hill since women could vote :-p
but like I said, I didn't really have the ability to continue the conversation other then stammering at that point because it's hard to argue with a woman that says "women were the problem".
I suppose though that it's more of a "intellectual thought exercise type" argument kinda like Scott Rubin's "The sun is more evil then Hitler".
It is very true. Many people now view the Libertarian party as Republicans that want to legalize marijuana. While I am not a libertarian, it is sad to see a party co-opted when it did make some valid points at one time. Historically, smaller parties are usually brought into - or some of their issues are brought into - one of the two major parties as they convince the public of there case. When a party like this (or the Green party which has similar issues) moves so drastically away from a cohesive message/following, they might as well not exist.
I think a major part of the problem for parties like the Libertarian party or the Green party is that their fundamental political ideals are sound, but their issue stances are not. The Democratic party is the exact opposite. I strongly disagree with their fundamental political ideals, but their issue stances are very good.
Take for example the political ideal of state's rights. Fundamentally speaking, I strongly believe that government has the potential to be better and more efficient if power is dispersed further down the federal hierarchy rather than all pushed towards the top. A bottom up structure results in greater diversity, and more decisions being made close to home. Beacon and New York should make the decisions for Beacon and New York. The more decisions made in Washington, D.C., the worse off we will be. I'd rather have custom fit for every different place than one size fits all.
As a political ideology state's rights are very good, and I fully support them. I could debate in favor of them in social studies class, and I could win. The problem is that reality does not work this way. Every political party that wants state's rights doesn't want them for these political reasons. They want them so they can ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and make all sorts of crazy and wrong local laws that would never pass the federal government.
Libertarians have a political ideology of small government and being fiscally conservative. That is very good as a political ideology. The government should most definitely spend less than they tax, and should spend as little as possible. I could also argue for fiscal conservativism in social studies class. But when you look at what actual Libertarians want, they want to eliminate all public schools, the post office, medicare, and just about everything except for police, defense, and courts. Obviously, that is just crazy and wrong.
On paper, the Republicans, Libertarians and such are the way to go. All of their political views line up exactly with what I want. A small fiscally conservative government, less centralized power, personal responsibility, and maximum individual freedom. On paper, the democratic party is everything wrong. They want a big tax and spend government, with a lot less individual liberties.
What the parties stand for on paper is the exact opposite of what they do in reality. Republicans have created the huge debt while Bill Clinton, a Democrat, made a surplus. Republicans have taken away individual liberties with some 1984 type stuff, while Democrats at least pay lip service to giving us those freedoms back.
All the political parties out there need to take a good hard look at their own platforms. They must realize that many of their personal issue stances contradict the political ideals in their platforms, and should work to either change the platforms or their stances to eliminate those contradictions. As of right now, cognitive dissonance rules the land.
She didn't really say "take away a women's right to vote" as she said that granting them the right to vote radically changed the government over the long term. She argued that the role of government became more of a "parental supportive" role and grew in size once women were granted the right to vote. Which moved the constitution away from it's strict interpretation. She's actually is not a religious person (a bit new age though) and I doubt she would want to have her right to vote taken away now. Her point was to say that as a "government should butt out of my business libertarian, it seemed to have gone down hill since women could vote :-p
That was a reaction to the great depression and the popularization on a fairly global scale of the idea of social welfare being a shared concern for an entire society (a theory that existed far before women could vote and even before the U.S. was founded). The only movement to limit rights that was strongly supported/associated with women was Prohibition and that took effect before women could vote. The ideas and political practices she broadly cites are not exclusively female at all. Her views reveal a biased and grossly stereotyped view of women and their politics that I find outright disgusting. Again, this is a classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc with a heaping helping of bigotry.
As a political ideology state's rights are very good, and I fully support them. I could debate in favor of them in social studies class, and I could win. The problem is that reality does not work this way. Every political party that wants state's rights doesn't want them for these political reasons. They want them so they can ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and make all sorts of crazy and wrong local laws that would never pass the federal government.
The same argument can be made against those who use the federal government to try and pass things at the national level that would never pass on the local level. (I'd offer a list but I think my list would have a lot of the same items as would be on your list.)
Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot where the tyranny of the few does not rule the majority.
The same argument can be made against those who use the federal government to try and pass things at the national level that would never pass on the local level. (I'd offer a list but I think my list would have a lot of the same items as would be on your list.)
The point is that there are some things that should be guaranteed to all citizens, no matter where they happen to be. There are other things which may vary based on geography.
The thing is that everyone in government always wants power to shift to them, so that they can have their way. Very few people want power to shift to where it should be in an optimal system. Those that do don't have the power to move the power into the correct configuration, because they aren't shifting it towards themselves.
The thing is that everyone in government always wants power to shift to them, so that they can have their way. Very few people want power to shift to where it should be in an optimal system. Those that do don't have the power to move the power into the correct configuration, because they aren't shifting it towards themselves.
Which is why all forms of government suck. The best you can do is live under a form of government that sucks the least for you.
The thing is that everyone in government always wants power to shift to them, so that they can have their way. Very few people want power to shift to where it should be in an optimal system. Those that do don't have the power to move the power into the correct configuration, because they aren't shifting it towards themselves.
Which is why all forms of government suck. The best you can do is live under a form of government that sucks the least for you.
What I think we need is to have a government that is to have a government run by people who don't want the job. Someone who wants to be Mayor/Governor/Congressperson/President has all sorts of ideas and plans of how they want things to be. They will work to build a power base, and make changes to suit themselves. Someone who doesn't want the job will just get the job done in an efficient and practical way, assuming they are also intelligent.
Why not just have an exit vote where the citizens decide whether the politician should be rewarded for their time in office or punished for it?
This I could go for. On top of something like an exit vote the people in public office should be held accountable for any law they break. I also want senators to be held accountable to someone. As it is they get elected, do what they want for six years and walk away like nothing happened. I want them to be accountable to state legislators like they were before 1913
Why not just have an exit vote where the citizens decide whether the politician should be rewarded for their time in office or punished for it?
It sounds good on paper, but this will give rise to politicians who cannot think for themselves. There is a difference (a major one) between what is right and what is popular, and if what is popular always prevailed, we'd still have Jim Crow laws in the South (hell, there would probably still be slaves), women and 18-year-olds would not be able to vote, etc. There's a reason we vote for people and not policies: in attempting to get where they want to be, people will (for the most part) become good politicians in the process. The only way to wield real power in government for longer than one term is to be legitimately good (in the eyes of the people) or to be extremely corrupt.
Someone who doesn't want the job will just get the job done in an efficient and practical way, assuming they are also intelligent.
Someone who does not want the job won't do the job. Just look at how many intelligent people half-ass their ways through jobs they don't want and tell me that they would efficiently and practically run the government of one of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth. The reason there are elections is to get rid of bad politicians, and limit the power of successful bad politicians. Even the most disagreeable, shitty politician, if in a position of power, must give some compromise to the opposition.
Someone who doesn't want the job will just get the job done in an efficient and practical way, assuming they are also intelligent.
Someone who does not want the job won't do the job. Just look at how many intelligent people half-ass their ways through jobs they don't want and tell me that they would efficiently and practically run the government of one of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth. The reason there are elections is to get rid of bad politicians, and limit the power of successful bad politicians. Even the most disagreeable, shitty politician, if in a position of power, must give some compromise to the opposition.
They are both equally bad choices. Ideally, it would be someone who wouldn't mind the job, but does not seek it out. I think this is what Scott meant.
Slavery is simply unprofitable and would have died a natural death. The same societal changes that lead to the industrial revolution (increased population, (mostly as a result of decreased mortality, which came about as a result of new agricultural techniques and technology) which lead to surplus workforce), made slavery unprofitable. The reason slavery was made unprofitable was that an surplus of unskilled workers allowed for cheap, motivated labor. Slaves are expensive to buy (and did not breed much in captivity, and in most places other than North America, did not live very long), require food, clothing and shelter, and do not work hard (why do you think they were whipped?). Other factors such as slave revolts and abolitionist pressure (there were many southern abolitionist groups before the Civil War) also contributed.
Slavery is simply unprofitable and would have died a natural death.
Any authority for this extraordinary claim?
The same societal changes that lead to the industrial revolution (increased population, (mostly as a result of decreased mortality, which came about as a result of new agricultural techniques and technology) which lead to surplus workforce), made slavery unprofitable.
Your invocation of increased population and the industrial revolution might be somewhat true for the North, but the South had few factories and a much smaller population than the North. Also, slavery was made very profitable in the South by the cotton gin, an industrial revolution era invention and a new agricultural technique. What other new agricultural techniques are you talking about?
The reason slavery was made unprofitable was that an surplus of unskilled workers allowed for cheap,motivatedlabor.
Do you have any proof that these workers were doing the same work for the same employers? Do you have any proof that these workers were in competition with slaves?
Other factors such as slave revolts and abolitionist pressure (there were many southern abolitionist groups before the Civil War) also contributed.
Contributed to what? Are you proposing that slave revolts led anyone to believe that slaves should be freed, as opposed to simply being put down more harshly? Can you show any proof whatsoever that southern abolitionist groups made slavery unprofitable?
A friend of mine went to the huge tea party in downtown Chicago yesterday, I guess because he takes issue with tax policy changes that will benefit him. The event in question is most aptly represented by the following image:
WTF? I don't understand these people. 1) They paint themselves as a grass roots, spontanious movement when really it is a Fox News staged event. 2) They are protesting wasteful spending, but they buy millions of tea bags. 3) They use tea as their symbol to hearken back to the Boston Tea Party which was protesting taxation without representation, not taxation on its own. To make the analogy correct, shouldn't they be dumping affluent wage earners into the sea? 4) They are protesting tax policies that will benefit the majority of Americans by LOWERING taxes. 5) They are protesting excessive spending - something that was fine under "conservative" administrations. If you are against something you should be against it no matter who is putting it forth. 6) That sign. Seriously, is that the comparison that guy is making? Yes, Sir, your possible tax increase is like a holocaust. Your suffering is just as harsh if not harsher than that of a people that was systematically destroyed.
WTF? I don't understand these people. 1) They paint themselves as a grass roots, spontanious movement when really it is a Fox News staged event. 2) They are protesting wasteful spending, but they buy millions of tea bags. 3) They use tea as their symbol to hearken back to the Boston Tea Party which was protesting taxation without representation, not taxation on its own. To make the analogy correct, shouldn't they be dumping affluent wage earners into the sea? 4) They are protesting tax policies that will benefit the majority of Americans by LOWERING taxes. 5) They are protesting excessive spending - something that was fine under "conservative" administrations. If you are against something you should be against it no matter who is putting it forth. 6) That sign. Seriously, is that the comparison that guy is making? Yes, Sir, your possible tax increase is like a holocaust. Your suffering is just as harsh if not harsher than that of a people that was systematically destroyed.
7) They actually used the term "teabagging." I seriously doubt that they did any research to see whether tebagging was an actual term before picking it.
WTF? I don't understand these people. 1) They paint themselves as a grass roots, spontanious movement when really it is a Fox News staged event.
Just because a news agency reports on a grassroots movement does not make them the power behind the movement. Politicians will always try and jump onto the populist uprising bandwagon and so will partisans looking for publicity. Jumping on the bandwagon does not put them in the drivers seat.
2) They are protesting wasteful spending, but they buy millions of tea bags.
There is a big difference between wastefully spending your own money and someone else wastefully spending your money. Besides, what does one tea bag cost? In the future will you ridicule all demonstrations that involve spending money? What do those signs cost? What about t-shirts? Do you really understand what you are saying and where it leads to?
3) They use tea as their symbol to hearken back to the Boston Tea Party which was protesting taxation without representation, not taxation on its own. To make the analogy correct, shouldn't they be dumping affluent wage earners into the sea?
The American Revolution was not simply about taxation without representation. The Boston Tea Party may have been the match that lit the fire but there was a lot of kindling already on the pile.
4) They are protesting tax policies that will benefit the majority of Americans by LOWERING taxes.
So how will all of these programs be paid for? The tax burden has to go somewhere or will the government just print more money which will devalue the money we already have?
5) They are protesting excessive spending - something that was fine under "conservative" administrations. If you are against something you should be against it no matter who is putting it forth.
The scale is different, $300B compared to $3T. I don't know about you but I can ignore a mosquito or two in a room, I can't ignore 10 times that number! How do you know these people were happy when Bush did it? When Bush came in back in 2000 he ran on a campaign promise of "uniter not a divider" but partisans (on both sides of the aisle) killed that policy. He was also supposed to be a moderate and instead we got a big-government big-religion President that often looked clueless. Obama ran on a similar message and ended up with similar results. Partisans in both parties had no interest in bipartisanship and now we have a big-government anti-religion President who speaks well but gives the impression that everything he says goes through a group of lawyers to insure it can mean different things to different people and can never be used against him when he changes his mind or policy.
6) That sign. Seriously, is that the comparison that guy is making? Yes, Sir, your possible tax increase is like a holocaust. Your suffering is just as harsh if not harsher than that of a people that was systematically destroyed.
Who took the photograph? Was the photograph taken to make the event look good or bad?
Here is some food for thought:
Same reporter but far different takes based on the views of the protesters.
I have even heard that the President's press secretary said that Obama knew nothing about the Tea Party protests. WTF? Is our President being sheltered or is his PR man lying on purpose?
There is a big difference between wastefully spending your own money and someone else wastefully spending your money. Besides, what does one tea bag cost? In the future will you ridicule all demonstrations that involve spending money? What do those signs cost? What about t-shirts? Do you really understand what you are saying and where it leads to?
It's a matter of principle. You don't bitch about having to pay a little more money to the government by spending it on tea to throw at shit. Besides, the whole point of the original tea party was to waste someone else s money, not your own.
The Boston Tea Party may have been the match that lit the fire but there was a lot of kindling already on the pile.
Such as? The lack of governmental representation was pretty much the primary reason for the Revolution. Any other grievances come in a distant second.
So how will all of these programs be paid for? The tax burden has to go somewhere or will the government just print more money which will devalue the money we already have?
You tell us. On one hand you slam Obama for spending money, yet you are defending the movement which is all about lowering taxes. You can't have it both ways.
I don't know about you but I can ignore a mosquito or two in a room, I can't ignore 10 times that number!
2. The cost of a single tea bag is irrelevant. The fact is they're spending countless tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to protest wasteful spending, ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
3. The American Revolution was not only about taxation without representation (although that was one of, if not the biggest reasons), but the Boston Tea Parties were. Specifically, how the Americans were being taxed unfairly (such as on their tea and playing cards), while having no seats in Parliament.
4. What is your point here? You seem to take the teabaggers' side, opposing increased government taxes, while arguing against lowering the taxes. Which is it? To answer your question, though, the majority of low-income Americans will receive tax breaks, while the upper percentiles and large businesses will receive tax increases.
5. It's a bit early to judge the results of Obama's policies, don't you think? You say you can't ignore the $3T of proposed spending, while the purpose is to fix the $5.7T of debt accrued under Bush. Where were the tea parties then?
6. Regardless of the bias of the photographer, the sign-holder is clearly out of their fucking mind. Seriously.
[EDIT: It astounds me that it took a half-hour to post this. Andrew beat me to the punch... by a while.]
The main problem I have with the reporting on the Tea Parties is that they are being portrayed as an anti-tax protest when that is not necessarily the case. The Tea Party protests are more about people banding together and saying, "Hey, elected officials, quit wasting our money!!!" I have watched too many reporters on TV misrepresenting why these people have gathered together to protest.
I don't mind taxes as long as the money spent is not wasted.
Are you trying to imply that $5.7T of debt acquired over 8 years is worse than $3T in one year?
Yes Andrew, there was way too much spending under Bush and now their is too much spending under Obama. It just finally reached a point where people decided they can't take it anymore.
PS: Yes, the sign holder is out of their mind. However, if a reporter filed a story about the Tea Party event and that was the only picture he took than that shows a serious bias on the behalf of the reporter because they are using the one bat-shit crazy guy as the posterboy of the event.
The main problem I have with the reporting on the Tea Parties is that they are being portrayed as an anti-tax protest when that is not necessarily the case. The Tea Party protests are more about people banding together and saying, "Hey, elected officials, quit wasting our money!!!" I have watched too many reporters on TV misrepresenting why these people have gathered together to protest.
I don't mind taxes as long as the money spent is not wasted.
Are you trying to imply that $5.7T of debt acquired over 8 years is worse than $3T in one year?
If you disagree with the stimulus package so strongly then what is your alternative? Sit on the money and do nothing as the economy gets progressively worse? These protests aren't about "don't waste our money" they're about "I don't know what you're spending this money on but it didn't magically fix everything overnight so give it back"
The tea-baggers are definitely not a grass-roots movement. They were planned and executed by the lobbying groups Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. These big business lobbying groups also lobbied for the privatization of social security and offshore drilling. The actual tea-baggers are pawns of big business interests. They are protesting policies that benefit them because they've been deceived into thinking that their interests are somehow the same as big businesses' interests. Americans for Prosperity even offered cash rewards for publicizing the tea parties.
Just because a news agency reports on a grassroots movement does not make them the power behind the movement.
There is a big difference between wastefully spending your own money and someone else wastefully spending your money. . . . So how will all of these programs be paid for? The tax burden has to go somewhere or will the government just print more money which will devalue the money we already have? The scale is different, $300B compared to $3T. I don't know about you but I can ignore a mosquito or two in a room, I can't ignore 10 times that number!
The difference is that the money wasted by the GWB administration in Iraq and in giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the same time will never be recovered. That money is well and truly wasted. The money that Obama is spending should, and in some case already has, made beneficial results. That money has not been wasted.
Who took the photograph? Was the photograph taken to make the event look good or bad?
The intent of the photographer is not the question. The people holding the signs were at the parties. The photographs were not staged. They were not taken to make the te-baggers look bad. They are simply photographs of what these people were actually doing. Here are some more of the signs carried at the tea parties. Nice, huh?
I have even heard that the President's press secretary said that Obama knew nothing about the Tea Party protests. WTF? Is our President being sheltered or is his PR man lying on purpose?
Well, the Commander-in-Chief has been doing some important things, like fighting pirates and trying to save the economy. He doesn't have time to hear about a bunch of kooks, wing-nuts, and crazies protesting against their own best interests.
These protests aren't about "don't waste our money"
There weren't many signs saying "Don't waste our money." However, I saw a lot of signs with anti-tax slogans. It's reasonable to conclude that the tea-baggers are protesting taxes because of the prevalence of anti-tax sloganeering and the fact that they were all staged on April 15. It's disingenuous to try to say that they were about anything else, except possibly the growing frustration with the fact that the ONLY fiscal ideas that the republicans have ever had - lower taxes on the rich and deregulation - have been shown to be a miserable fail.
Tick, the comparison is unfair above, as one is a prepared piece, not live from the scene but reporting from afar if you will. Even the titles of these videos show the video makers and poster intention to do harm to the other political side. They are in effect part of a smear campaign against whoever the broadcaster is not affiliated with. I am slightly shocked to see journalists behave in this way, showing no regard for impartiality and will point to the BBC as the shining star of journalism (even though Realy'O Bill is convinced it is part of the liberal elite, trying to undermine good, honest, working class joe's like himself *cough cough*) I find it disgusting that these people consider themselves part of what should be a honest and chivalrous profession (journalism that is). THEY ARE ALL SPIN DOCTORS. The quicker people give up on he idea of commercial television being impartial the quicker we can restore public trust in journalism.
The whole problem that happens above is to do with the fact that politicians rule, not people. I envision that eventually technology and social attitudes change to allow a system of politics with no parties, but with everyone voting on citizen made motions on a online or whatever system that allows everyone one vote on every issue. If they choose to form groups them so be it. However if you remove the idea of party politics and turn to personal politic you can get away from the bundles politics offers you know. For example, If you agree with a open market with low taxation and little government intervention, you also have to vote for a party that promotes pro life policies, something that you may be against.
Sorry about the late reply, my internets went down last night and only just came back up
So according to fox news it's ok if the Right protests and not ok if the left does it. We are currently living under taxation without representation however I do remember a rather decisive election recently...
Comments
Also, your family is crazy and your Aunt doesn't understand Libertarianism.
but like I said, I didn't really have the ability to continue the conversation other then stammering at that point because it's hard to argue with a woman that says "women were the problem".
I suppose though that it's more of a "intellectual thought exercise type" argument kinda like Scott Rubin's "The sun is more evil then Hitler".
Take for example the political ideal of state's rights. Fundamentally speaking, I strongly believe that government has the potential to be better and more efficient if power is dispersed further down the federal hierarchy rather than all pushed towards the top. A bottom up structure results in greater diversity, and more decisions being made close to home. Beacon and New York should make the decisions for Beacon and New York. The more decisions made in Washington, D.C., the worse off we will be. I'd rather have custom fit for every different place than one size fits all.
As a political ideology state's rights are very good, and I fully support them. I could debate in favor of them in social studies class, and I could win. The problem is that reality does not work this way. Every political party that wants state's rights doesn't want them for these political reasons. They want them so they can ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and make all sorts of crazy and wrong local laws that would never pass the federal government.
Libertarians have a political ideology of small government and being fiscally conservative. That is very good as a political ideology. The government should most definitely spend less than they tax, and should spend as little as possible. I could also argue for fiscal conservativism in social studies class. But when you look at what actual Libertarians want, they want to eliminate all public schools, the post office, medicare, and just about everything except for police, defense, and courts. Obviously, that is just crazy and wrong.
On paper, the Republicans, Libertarians and such are the way to go. All of their political views line up exactly with what I want. A small fiscally conservative government, less centralized power, personal responsibility, and maximum individual freedom. On paper, the democratic party is everything wrong. They want a big tax and spend government, with a lot less individual liberties.
What the parties stand for on paper is the exact opposite of what they do in reality. Republicans have created the huge debt while Bill Clinton, a Democrat, made a surplus. Republicans have taken away individual liberties with some 1984 type stuff, while Democrats at least pay lip service to giving us those freedoms back.
All the political parties out there need to take a good hard look at their own platforms. They must realize that many of their personal issue stances contradict the political ideals in their platforms, and should work to either change the platforms or their stances to eliminate those contradictions. As of right now, cognitive dissonance rules the land.
Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot where the tyranny of the few does not rule the majority.
The thing is that everyone in government always wants power to shift to them, so that they can have their way. Very few people want power to shift to where it should be in an optimal system. Those that do don't have the power to move the power into the correct configuration, because they aren't shifting it towards themselves.
Why not just have an exit vote where the citizens decide whether the politician should be rewarded for their time in office or punished for it?
I don't understand these people.
1) They paint themselves as a grass roots, spontanious movement when really it is a Fox News staged event.
2) They are protesting wasteful spending, but they buy millions of tea bags.
3) They use tea as their symbol to hearken back to the Boston Tea Party which was protesting taxation without representation, not taxation on its own. To make the analogy correct, shouldn't they be dumping affluent wage earners into the sea?
4) They are protesting tax policies that will benefit the majority of Americans by LOWERING taxes.
5) They are protesting excessive spending - something that was fine under "conservative" administrations. If you are against something you should be against it no matter who is putting it forth.
6) That sign. Seriously, is that the comparison that guy is making? Yes, Sir, your possible tax increase is like a holocaust. Your suffering is just as harsh if not harsher than that of a people that was systematically destroyed.
How do you know these people were happy when Bush did it? When Bush came in back in 2000 he ran on a campaign promise of "uniter not a divider" but partisans (on both sides of the aisle) killed that policy. He was also supposed to be a moderate and instead we got a big-government big-religion President that often looked clueless.
Obama ran on a similar message and ended up with similar results. Partisans in both parties had no interest in bipartisanship and now we have a big-government anti-religion President who speaks well but gives the impression that everything he says goes through a group of lawyers to insure it can mean different things to different people and can never be used against him when he changes his mind or policy.Who took the photograph? Was the photograph taken to make the event look good or bad?
Here is some food for thought:
Same reporter but far different takes based on the views of the protesters.
I have even heard that the President's press secretary said that Obama knew nothing about the Tea Party protests. WTF? Is our President being sheltered or is his PR man lying on purpose?
2. The cost of a single tea bag is irrelevant. The fact is they're spending countless tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to protest wasteful spending, ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
3. The American Revolution was not only about taxation without representation (although that was one of, if not the biggest reasons), but the Boston Tea Parties were. Specifically, how the Americans were being taxed unfairly (such as on their tea and playing cards), while having no seats in Parliament.
4. What is your point here? You seem to take the teabaggers' side, opposing increased government taxes, while arguing against lowering the taxes. Which is it? To answer your question, though, the majority of low-income Americans will receive tax breaks, while the upper percentiles and large businesses will receive tax increases.
5. It's a bit early to judge the results of Obama's policies, don't you think? You say you can't ignore the $3T of proposed spending, while the purpose is to fix the $5.7T of debt accrued under Bush. Where were the tea parties then?
6. Regardless of the bias of the photographer, the sign-holder is clearly out of their fucking mind. Seriously.
[EDIT: It astounds me that it took a half-hour to post this. Andrew beat me to the punch... by a while.]
I don't mind taxes as long as the money spent is not wasted.
Are you trying to imply that $5.7T of debt acquired over 8 years is worse than $3T in one year?
Yes Andrew, there was way too much spending under Bush and now their is too much spending under Obama. It just finally reached a point where people decided they can't take it anymore.
PS: Yes, the sign holder is out of their mind. However, if a reporter filed a story about the Tea Party event and that was the only picture he took than that shows a serious bias on the behalf of the reporter because they are using the one bat-shit crazy guy as the posterboy of the event.
The whole problem that happens above is to do with the fact that politicians rule, not people. I envision that eventually technology and social attitudes change to allow a system of politics with no parties, but with everyone voting on citizen made motions on a online or whatever system that allows everyone one vote on every issue. If they choose to form groups them so be it. However if you remove the idea of party politics and turn to personal politic you can get away from the bundles politics offers you know. For example, If you agree with a open market with low taxation and little government intervention, you also have to vote for a party that promotes pro life policies, something that you may be against.
Sorry about the late reply, my internets went down last night and only just came back up
Tea Party Tyranny
So according to fox news it's ok if the Right protests and not ok if the left does it.
We are currently living under taxation without representation however I do remember a rather decisive election recently...