Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nice strawman attempt, when you're spending twice as much as you can afford, i support those values indeed. Arnold "ran on it", Obama "ran on it", Christie is doing it and in a state almost as fucked up as California. I haven't went over the spending budget line by line (before you demonize me, neither has Obama ) but when you're running these kind of deficits that continue to increase, you MUST cut spending. Especially in a state like NJ where they've been over taxed for a long time. Taxing the middle class to death to support lazy folks, are those the values you support ? ........
"lazy folks"? The poor, aged and ill are now lazy folks? Or did you mean someone else, but choose to speak in code?
As for deficit spending, do you? I've noticed many complaints about spending on credit from self-described conservatives and I'd be willing to bet most of them carry a credit card balance and pay interest every month [btw, my wife and don't, we pay as we go on everything but the mortgage - which we never borrowed on].
I have no problem with Obama spending to fix what boooooooooosh fucked up. Consider it putting new shingles on the roof to save a house the previous occupants neglected.
Cutting spending is code too, is it not? Screw those without and call them lazy, but reward those with by cutting their taxes. It'll all trickle down in the end, correct?
Many of the poor are just lazy, hell there are well off people that are just as lazy also. Most, if not all of the aged have already paid a ton into the system and should be "paid back" but the sooper dooper gubment has spent and continues to spend their money. While i do sympathize with the ill and think they should get some help if they have nowhere to turn to, my problem is many of these "ill's" are self inflicted ( drug addicts, alcohlics, etc...), how much help should we really give them ? Furthermore, if you think your libby yo yo politicians really want to help these people and aren't in it strictly for their own personal gain, you're quite naive......
I do believe that those who identify with the 'tea party' movement are
A. caught up in emotion and
B. have been manipulated by special interests (those who do not put country first) motivated by the lust for power and avarice.
A. Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)[B]Likely true. And if one is caught up in emotion, isn't it also likely that rational thought is surpressed?[/B]
B. Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement? Manipulation is all around us, as you suggest. But knowing this to be true, wouldn't a rational response be to examine the untested propaganda before adopting it as a truth and marching to the band?/B]
Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice." The TP movement is not a grass root movement. For an example of a true grass root movement see the green movement in Iran.
In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?Expect? I would hope reasonable, which is why I posted the thread as a question. I've yet to read a reasonable response. Lots of anger, blame and noise, i.e. emotion; but, very little of substance - Coyote had the best response.
If I may be so bold, please allow me to imagine:
1. Federal Elections must be publically funded. No one, may give any candidate anything - tangible or otherwise (promises, etc.)
2. No elected or appointed Federal Official may accept or be offered anything.
3. No former elected or appointed Federal Official may work in the private sector to influence any current elected or appointed official.
4. The POTUS should have the line-item veto, such veto maybe overridden as provided for in the Constitution.
5. The media using the public domain, radio, television and the internet will provide fair and balanced reporting on issues UNLESS the reporting is clearly labeld as Editorial or Opinion. Then equal time will be allowed for a rebutal.
6. No person, corporation or other such entity shall dominate a media market (yes, this is pointed directly at FOX).
7. Libel and slander protection will be provided to all elected and appointed federal officials, and both civil and criminal penalties shall apply when violations alleged are proven in the Federal Trial Court of the Jurisdiction the offense is alleged to have occured
Apart from the necessary destruction of free media market principles and growth of government bureaucracy to enforce #5, 6, 7, I'm at a loss to understand how these are in difference to "those who identify with the 'tea party' movement."
The 'free' media market is not. It is controlled by a small minority of owners, hiding behind the principle of a free press. A discussion on that issue is as important as a discussion on campaign finance reform and the reform of the initiative process which has been taken over by special interests.
A. Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)[B]Likely true. And if one is caught up in emotion, isn't it also likely that rational thought is surpressed?[/B]
B. Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement? Manipulation is all around us, as you suggest. But knowing this to be true, wouldn't a rational response be to examine the untested propaganda before adopting it as a truth and marching to the band?/B]
Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice." The TP movement is not a grass root movement. For an example of a true grass root movement see the green movement in Iran.
In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?Expect? I would hope reasonable, which is why I posted the thread as a question. I've yet to read a reasonable response. Lots of anger, blame and noise, i.e. emotion; but, very little of substance - Coyote had the best response.
If I may be so bold, please allow me to imagine:
Apart from the necessary destruction of free media market principles and growth of government bureaucracy to enforce #5, 6, 7, I'm at a loss to understand how these are in difference to "those who identify with the 'tea party' movement."
The 'free' media market is not. It is controlled by a small minority of owners, hiding behind the principle of a free press. A discussion on that issue is as important as a discussion on campaign finance reform and the reform of the initiative process which has been taken over by special interests.
Really?
I'm not sure what "a small minority of owners" has to do with anything, but wonder what you mean by "controlled?" Controlling Markets is illegal in the USA.
Apparently, you are suggesting that the current federal administration is too incompetant to regulate The Media under present anti-trust laws.
Frankly, I could easily agree with this conspiracy theory, noting that :
1. administrative oversight of the banking industry has been so sloppy as to bring us to the brink of financial ruin,
2. oversight of the environment has jeapordized the ecology of the entire gulf coast,
3. defending of the Mexican Border has been almost non-existant, and
4. fundamental government responsibilities to defend the homeland have been so slipshod that enemies board planes in Boston to fly them into the PENTAGON!
Perhaps, the Tea Party's "Rhetoric" is simply asking government to actually govern?
How refreshing it would be to have government actually accompish something useful, WITHOUT growing? Do you think that is possible?
The 'free' media market is not. It is controlled by a small minority of owners, hiding behind the principle of a free press. A discussion on that issue is as important as a discussion on campaign finance reform and the reform of the initiative process which has been taken over by special interests.
Really?
I'm not sure what "a small minority of owners" has to do with anything, but wonder what you mean by "controlled?" Controlling Markets is illegal in the USA.
Apparently, you are suggesting that the current federal administration is too incompetant to regulate The Media under present anti-trust laws.
Frankly, I could easily agree with this conspiracy theory, noting that :
1. administrative oversight of the banking industry has been so sloppy as to bring us to the brink of financial ruin,
2. oversight of the environment has jeapordized the ecology of the entire gulf coast,
3. defending of the Mexican Border has been almost non-existant, and
4. fundamental government responsibilities to defend the homeland have been so slipshod that enemies board planes in Boston to fly them into the PENTAGON!
Perhaps, the Tea Party's "Rhetoric" is simply asking government to actually govern?
How refreshing it would be to have government actually accompish something useful, WITHOUT growing? Do you think that is possible?
Ah, so we are back to the question. If the Tea Party were to "acutally govern" what would be the effect? How would a Tea Party person (you?) decide on what to regulate and what not to regulate?
If we had elected Rand Paul as POTUS in Novemeber, 2008 what might be the consequences and how would America be different today?
(I always hated hypotheticals too)
I find Rand Paul too radical, I suspect main street voters will too. But time will tell, populism usually works on the myopic; considering the potential (and maybe unintended) consequences of what sounds really good requires thinking.
This whole anti-government movement is in my considered judgment a canard. Few among us want anarchy but many want to be left alone - until they need something - and others want to take advantage when they are free and unencumbered by laws and regulations.
I suggest the Tea Party types read Thoreau and go live by a pond; clearly the idea of a social contract and the common good is anathema to them. There are plenty of 'ponds' in Minnesota, so maybe the state can be renamed Bachmann and those who choose to live in a state of nature can have that opportunity. I wonder how long until human nature and ideology confront and we would see the savagery imagined in the "Lord of the Flys"?
Really?
I'm not sure what "a small minority of owners" has to do with anything, but wonder what you mean by "controlled?" Controlling Markets is illegal in the USA.
Apparently, you are suggesting that the current federal administration is too incompetant to regulate The Media under present anti-trust laws.
Frankly, I could easily agree with this conspiracy theory, noting that :
1. administrative oversight of the banking industry has been so sloppy as to bring us to the brink of financial ruin,
2. oversight of the environment has jeapordized the ecology of the entire gulf coast,
3. defending of the Mexican Border has been almost non-existant, and
4. fundamental government responsibilities to defend the homeland have been so slipshod that enemies board planes in Boston to fly them into the PENTAGON!
Perhaps, the Tea Party's "Rhetoric" is simply asking government to actually govern?
How refreshing it would be to have government actually accompish something useful, WITHOUT growing? Do you think that is possible?
Ah, so we are back to the question. If the Tea Party were to "acutally govern" what would be the effect? How would a Tea Party person (you?) decide on what to regulate and what not to regulate?
If we had elected Rand Paul as POTUS in Novemeber, 2008 what might be the consequences and how would America be different today?
(I always hated hypotheticals too)
I find Rand Paul too radical, I suspect main street voters will too. But time will tell, populism usually works on the myopic; considering the potential (and maybe unintended) consequences of what sounds really good requires thinking.
This whole anti-government movement is in my considered judgment a canard. Few among us want anarchy but many want to be left alone - until they need something - and others want to take advantage when they are free and unencumbered by laws and regulations.
I suggest the Tea Party types read Thoreau and go live by a pond; clearly the idea of a social contract and the common good is anathema to them. There are plenty of 'ponds' in Minnesota, so maybe the state can be renamed Bachmann and those who choose to live in a state of nature can have that opportunity. I wonder how long until human nature and ideology confront and we would see the savagery imagined in the "Lord of the Flys"?
Spoken like a true Tory....or, at the very best, a Dickinsonian, never signing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that a peaceful settlement between American Colonists and the British Government would be possible despite the fact that George III refused to even open the proposal.
I'm reading David McCullough's book John Adams, but appreciate William Golding's warning about emotional decent into savagery: In reality, Piggy Lives. Piggy, has THRIVED.
But, does Piggy care?
If he did, then why is there a Tea Party?
Ah, so we are back to the question. If the Tea Party were to "acutally govern" what would be the effect? How would a Tea Party person (you?) decide on what to regulate and what not to regulate?
If we had elected Rand Paul as POTUS in Novemeber, 2008 what might be the consequences and how would America be different today?
(I always hated hypotheticals too)
I find Rand Paul too radical, I suspect main street voters will too. But time will tell, populism usually works on the myopic; considering the potential (and maybe unintended) consequences of what sounds really good requires thinking.
This whole anti-government movement is in my considered judgment a canard. Few among us want anarchy but many want to be left alone - until they need something - and others want to take advantage when they are free and unencumbered by laws and regulations.
I suggest the Tea Party types read Thoreau and go live by a pond; clearly the idea of a social contract and the common good is anathema to them. There are plenty of 'ponds' in Minnesota, so maybe the state can be renamed Bachmann and those who choose to live in a state of nature can have that opportunity. I wonder how long until human nature and ideology confront and we would see the savagery imagined in the "Lord of the Flys"?
Spoken like a true Tory....or, at the very best, a Dickinsonian, never signing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that a peaceful settlement between American Colonists and the British Government would be possible despite the fact that George III refused to even open the proposal.
I'm reading David McCullough's book John Adams, but appreciate William Golding's warning about emotional decent into savagery: In reality, Piggy Lives. Piggy, has THRIVED.
But, does Piggy care?
If he did, then why is there a Tea Party?
"Lord of the Flies", of course.
I doubt I'd ever be a Tory or a Nevile Chamberlain, but at my age I've learned to listen to all sides and think before I 'rush' to judgment. As for Piggy, I suspect today he is some guy called Jose whose only crime is an interest in caring for his family as best he can; Jack being a composite of Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh (yuck, Limbaugh in drag, gives me shivers).
I too enjoy biographies, and recommend a rather old one on John Marshall ("John Marshall, A Life in Law", 1974 by L.Balker). Now I'm reading Jon Meacham, "American Lion" (Andrew Jackson bio).
btw, please add "or" to my parenthetical comment aboven ("or you"), I did not mean to suggest you are one of those I disdain. Your posts are 'different' but suggest a good mind and a curious disposition.
