For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

[Trample the Elderly]

You sure do take up a lot of space to show you're a jackass. When that psychotic muslim started shooting our soldiers in Texas, weren't you the one who first thought how bad it would be for muslim's image? You didn't even give a shit about your own countrymen.

Yes I'm the problem. I'm the one: conducting the war on drugs, bombing people in Iraq who never did anything to me, stealing the tax payer's money and giving it to private banks, flooding the gulf with oil, sending all our manufacturing jobs to China. Yes, I did all of that because I'm a one man gang wreaking crew of destruction like Mr.T on crack. Yes you found me out. It was me and not the incompetent and greed of the Federal government. Also, I was the one who sent in troops to Yugoslavia. I also invented crack cocaine back in 1984 when I ran out of free base. Global warming occurs because I drive a Ford Van and run may air conditioner on high.

You're solution is to have a more effective government. Mine is to have less power in the hands of the eff ups that caused these problems or allowed them to fester in the first place. More government isn't the solution, because if it was we'd not have the problems in the first place.

Oh, I'm a crack pot conspiracy theorist because I know the Federal Reserve isn't a part of the government and doesn't answer to it. You got me! I guess I'll have to retire my tin foil hat and stop learning how to do things. Government will do it all for me.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...
What do you mean "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club"?

Simply this,
ending, or severely limiting, the restrictions the federal government can use to tie up money.

The prime example that comes to my mind is federal highway funds. Let's say, for example that Md has 1% of the interstate and federal road systems. Then when budgeting, Md should get 1% of the federal highway funds, regardless of whether the people of Md have instituted a Click it or Ticket campaign, or what the speed limits the people of Md have allowed on their roadways, or what insurance dictates Md has instituted, or whatever other things the Federal dictates that we should do.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were given their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.

I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

[dmek25]

let me ask you something scud. do you think that racial issues are more in the fore front because we have a black president? not once during W's, or any other presidents term have i heard anyone refer to them as a "white" president. i guess because Obama is the first "non white", there will be some growing pains. i agree that Obama is walking a tight rope when dealing with this stuff. but not sure what he, or the administration, had to do with the voter intimidation thing. and i am always in the corner of getting the facts first

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by dmek25

let me ask you something scud. do you think that racial issues are more in the fore front because we have a black president? not once during W's, or any other presidents term have i heard anyone refer to them as a "white" president. i guess because Obama is the first "non white", there will be some growing pains. i agree that Obama is walking a tight rope when dealing with this stuff. but not sure what he, or the administration, had to do with the voter intimidation thing. and i am always in the corner of getting the facts first

I can agree with that. Certainly if he was white he wouldn't have gotten any heat from saying the cops in Mass were stupid for arresting Gates. Being the President is obviously no easy task, especially when you're the first black one. Any issues of race are going to amplified for him.

As far as the Black Panther thing, IMO that was pretty cut and dry voter intimidation, and certainly racially motivated. Yet the attorney general (who Obama appointed and who is also black) dropped the case. I think that was a mistake, and of course it's going to raise eyebrows.

I think a huge part of it is the sensationalist media as well. I mean, the whole reason anyone is even talking about this is because Breitbart edits clips in a way that should be criminal. The media blows everything up ad nauseum. The whole MSNBC vs Fox etc etc. Couple that with a Congress who's approval rating sits around 11%, and throw in two wars, balooning defecit, double digit unemployment, a housing market in the gutter, and the country's worst environmental crisis ever... well, if Obama farts in the wrong direction it's going to be blown up to epic levels. He's in a tough spot.

[saden1]

I can't think of a single reason how term limits would help. It's s lipstick on a pig solution at best.

[CRedskinsRule]

Term limits force new thinking, and re-evaluation of what the special interests are selling. They reduce the likelihood of political cronyism by limiting how long one can expect to get favors from a particular candidate. They would ensure that the people coming into any given office don't think of it as a life long future, but instead a relatively short term stop in their path of life(this has both good and bad sub points).

Interestingly the Roman Republic article from Wiki that I mentioned earlier also said that about this time in their development they enacted a form of what we refer to as term limits.

n 342 BC, two significant laws were passed. One of these two laws made it illegal to hold more than one office at any given point in time. The other law required an interval of ten years to pass before any magistrate could seek reelection to any office.

342BC would be 167 years after the marked beginning, or 55 years earlier in their society's development. I just find it historically interesting, I am not using it as justification or proof

[saden1]

To me an uninformed and unsophisticated public coupled with lobbyist and special interest nullifies the value of term limits. Politicians will still get free trips while in office and cushy jobs after they leave office from/with some special intrest group. Term limits only limits how long they have to do whatever the people pulling the strings want them to do and then the next guy comes in and the cycle is repeated.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

To me an uninformed and unsophisticated public coupled with lobbyist and special interest nullifies the value of term limits. Politicians will still get free trips while in office and cushy jobs after they leave office from/with some special intrest group. Term limits only limits how long they have to do whatever the people pulling the strings want them to do and then the next guy comes in and the cycle is repeated.

You raise a good point, but it actually makes me more for term limits. Right now, Sen Byrd put his name on the ticket, x number of voters didn't think, they just voted for him. If every few years, voters were having to relearn names, maybe we could get a more informed and more sophisticated populace. Maybe. Certainly people have to re-evaluate the President every 8 years regardless, although LO may have gotten that small detail fixed by 2016.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You raise a good point, but it actually makes me more for term limits. Right now, Sen Byrd put his name on the ticket, x number of voters didn't think, they just voted for him. If every few years, voters were having to relearn names, maybe we could get a more informed and more sophisticated populace. Maybe. Certainly people have to re-evaluate the President every 8 years regardless, although LO may have gotten that small detail fixed by 2016.

Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.

I would like the states to develop individual plans for the nomination of Senators, back as it was before they became elected by the general public.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I would like the states to develop individual plans for the nomination of Senators, back as it was before they became elected by the general public.

How does adding another layer alleviate the motivation for soft corruption and the disregard of the will of the electorate by politicians?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Or we could go back to the way it was, having the governors appoint the Senators. We both know that isn't going to happen though. I would love to have McDonnel recall tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb.

The Constitution originally did not grant governors the right to select Senators, it was the job of the State Legislature.

U.S. Constitution. § 1: Senate; Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Pre-17th Amendment vacancies were filled by the State Legislature which, in turn, could allow the governor to appoint a temporary Senator until the assembly could hold the election. After the 17th Amendment, there were restrictions placed on temporary appointments and, as a result, some States have to allow the seat to remain vacant until it is slated for general election.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You raise a good point, but it actually makes me more for term limits. Right now, Sen Byrd put his name on the ticket, x number of voters didn't think, they just voted for him. If every few years, voters were having to relearn names, maybe we could get a more informed and more sophisticated populace. Maybe. Certainly people have to re-evaluate the President every 8 years regardless, although LO may have gotten that small detail fixed by 2016.

If people just show up for Byrd what makes you think they won't just show up for a democrat or republican? In fact I believe that's how Alvin Greene.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

If people just show up for Byrd what makes you think they won't just show up for a democrat or republican? In fact I believe that's how Alvin Greene.

They could and some would, but even then at least at the primaries there would be some level of thought.