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

[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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The account also took place around 1986 when she was working for a non-profit, not as a federal employee as Fox news has been reporting. And you would think that if she was such a racist, the farmer in question would have come out and said it by now. On the contrary, he and his wife appeared on CNN earlier totally backing Ms. Sherrod and saying how they would have lost their farm years ago had it not been for her and the continued assistance she provided.

I'm hearing calls for her to be reinstated, although I doubt this will happen. Oh yeah, Breibart or whatever his name is isTHE biggest douche on the planet. I'm talking about sleeze ball from head to toe.

I think Breibart rules and has shed light on things others shy away from. Accorn is a great example. I have heard that some think he was set up with this tape because of what he did with Accorn. It shall be interesting to see how this pans out.

I guess you felt the same way about CBS and 60 Minutes when they used those fake documents against Bush.

[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.

[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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, I think it is on Obama, even if he didn't make the phone call himself. I mean, Gibbs in his presser today said that he had "no knowledge" of anyone in the administration pushing for Sherrod's resignation. Then in the same breath he apologized for the administration acting without all the facts. Ummmm....

Bottom line is, someone in the administration made her firing happen, otherwise they wouldn't be apologizing. Ultimately Obama is responsible for the people with whom he surrounds himself. So yeah, it's on him. Frankly I think it was a rash decision by an administration anxious to prove it stands equally on both sides of the racial fence. And chances are they probably do. But they've stumbled so much on the issue that they now just look dumb.

This presidency has really wet the bed on race in a few major instances, which surprises me considering the skin color of the POTUS. I figured on issues of race he'd be more unifying than polarizing. Guess I was wrong. I mean, didn't his campaign emphasize that it wouldn't get caught up in racial issues? Oops. The whole Gates thing, this Black Panther voter-intimidation case, Van Jones, now Sherrod...

Do I smell Beer Summit V2.0? LOL.

Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation. The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation. The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.

That makes no sense after they just decided not to prosecute that Black Panther or maybe they where worried how they would look for not prosecuting him and not taking actions against her.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

That makes no sense after they just decided not to prosecute that Black Panther or maybe they where worried how they would look for not prosecuting him and not taking actions against her.

Umm..that would be the DOJ's area.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Gotta tell you, after a couple of days of reflecting on this I find myself siding with you 99%. The other 1% was simply unavoidable to some extent.

I've become increasingly frustrated with how this Administration has handled and defused the issue of race. Sorry Saden. It seems they are so concerned at offending white America and the talking heads that they end up pissing off everyone, throwing their own under the bus, and further polarizing the nation. The end result, in my opinion, is they end up practicing their own brand of racism. I think he needs to take some risks say what needs to said and let the chips fall where they may.

To spin this another way, if me and Obama lived in the same hood and I got in jam with either the feds or some dudes from another set, I'm not sure he would have my back. It f*cking pains me to say that, because here's a guy that found his political footing on the rough and tumble streets of southside of Chicago. Polls be damned, he's starting to lose street cred big time.

I hear you. You are not alone, 12th. A few of my closest work friends are black, and we discuss politics here and there. They feel the same way. Over the past 18 months, I've watched them go from ra-ra Obama fans to just kind of shrugging their shoulders at the man. I'm convinced that's a pretty accurate microcosm. There was a time when Obama being a 2 term president was a given. How quickly things have changed.

It's sort of ironic really. What got him elected has in a way been his downfall thus far. Even Tim Tebow couldn't live up to that presidential campaign.

I think it's worth reiterating that IMO Obama has done a piss poor job of selecting an inner-circle. I don't know who I would replace them with, but I think Axlerod, Plouffe, Jarret, Emanuel, etc have NOT been good for this President.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.

Other than the Senatorial appointment, term limits and "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club ", I agree with all of these. Further, if the economc policy can be sold simply as a "freeze", rather than a "cut", it might be easier to generate the political will.

I am on the fence about the term limits & return to appointments, I just see these as increasing cronyism & corruption and not necessarily an improvement to the current system.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example..

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it.

1. I absolutely agree that poor govt. is unacceptable and that a population should at all times demand, and those elected or appointed to public service, should provide that service effectively, efficiently and in a responsive manner. Even the best government in the world can be improved, but it requires a population willing to do so.

2. Currently, Foreign Policy Magazine ranks "failed states" considering a multitude of factors. We are ranked 159 out of 177 (i.e. we have one of the most stable govts. out there) and all but a couple of those govts. "better" than the US are smaller western European countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland make up the "best" five). 2010 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy

We should always strive for better government, but, rather blame govt. for all our ills, it is important to recognize just what our stable, central govt. has enabled us to accomplish. A failure to recognize where our govt. is working increases the likelihood of f'ing things up worse as we damn govt. to hell and rip it apart.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

[W]hat you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

I do not believe govt. is innately "neutral". It can, and should be neutral, but that is dependant on the governed. In dictatorships or oligarchies, the government is good or bad dependent on the dictator or oligarchy (the Nazis under Hitler were baaaad government). In a democracy, the govt. is reflective of its electorate. Today's electorate, certainly on a federal level is apathetic, so we have apathetic, sloppy governance (I think this is due, in part, to the sheer numbers involved). This, in turn, allows for things like money, race, and other undemocratic factors to undermine fair, efficient governance.

Everyone in govt. wants power? Maybe. Certainly, the government needs "the power to control what others do" to govern or it is not a government. The question is what do those who hold power want to do with that power? An effective, knowledgeable electorate insures that those in power are using the public power as it was intended - for the public good. Yes, the power "the power to control what others do" should be limited and, even today, the Bill of Rights provides those protections.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

... Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.

First, the "government bureacracy" is pre-eminient. Can't have a central government "without the Federal government dictating." The bureaucracy (the unelected administrators of govt. power) know where their "power" comes from - the elected officials who appointed them - and will respond to pressure from them. These "established politicians" were allowed to become "established" by an apathetic electorate. And why is our electorate apathetic you may ask? Well, let me rant -

Mustering the political will to cut "something" means finding cuts upon which the majority of us can agree. I don't care how persuasive you are, convincing a majority of 300 million people to agree on the specifics of anything is, in my opinion, beyond a Herculean task. It requires all 300 million of us (well, 150,000,001 of us) to recognize that we will probably have to do some things we don't like in order to accomplish something we do like. Faced with this massive task of finding some common ground. TTE and his ilk believe that they have all the answers and that no answers can be found from beyond their spectrum. JTF and his ilk believe the same. From these two groups of idealogues there is no willingness or tolerance to even consider the other's positions in order to accomplish finding a consensus and effect some change.

TTE & JTF each claim that we, in the center, are having the wool pulled over our eyes - neither sees that they, and their zealotry, are the problem. By accepting nothing less than total victory, they set themselves up for exploitation and use by the very forces they decry. Set the ends against each other so the middle can accomplish nothing - And it's easy too, feed'em a little conspiracy theory and they eat it up. Rather than recognizing they can't have it all their way, they destroy any chance of consensus by claiming they alone have the secret to utopia.

Their zealotry increases voter apathy (ehh, why should I bother, nobody can agree on anything), which, in turn, leads to sloppy governance. Sloppy governance allows undemocratic forces to achieve illegal and unconstitutional ends which increases the apathy of the governed (well, except for the zealots). Rather than recognize the general apathy as a symptom of their own actions, the zealots claim it as proof of their cause.

You want an engaged govt. where "the minions" don't just toil? Then find a way to convince the zealots to acquiesce to considering principles that don't necessarily agree with their world view and may even be antithetical to it. Right now, the zealots are standing in the way of real solutions and they can't even see it. Fools who would blindly lead their country to Gotterdammerung rather than consider that they may not have a monopoly on the truth.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I hear you. You are not alone, 12th. A few of my closest work friends are black, and we discuss politics here and there. They feel the same way. Over the past 18 months, I've watched them go from ra-ra Obama fans to just kind of shrugging their shoulders at the man. I'm convinced that's a pretty accurate microcosm. There was a time when Obama being a 2 term president was a given. How quickly things have changed.

It's sort of ironic really. What got him elected has in a way been his downfall thus far. Even Tim Tebow couldn't live up to that presidential campaign.

I think it's worth reiterating that IMO Obama has done a piss poor job of selecting an inner-circle. I don't know who I would replace them with, but I think Axlerod, Plouffe, Jarret, Emanuel, etc have NOT been good for this President.

I agree that he has been ill served by his inner circle, but I don't think I would have another group at my finger tips come 2012. David Plouffe is more or less running the re-election effort. So he's not involved in the day-to-day inner workings of the White House or advising on policy. Speaking of which, it takes somebody to beat somebody. And despite the hiccups we've had, Sarah Palin is still the front runner for the GOP 2012. That's great news. I've said it before, but there's no way she'll turn down the opportunity to bash and face Obama in 2012. She's just too in love with herself. On Obama's worst day, he'll beat her by a safe margin.

But my money isn't so much on Obama, as it is on David Plouffe. I've met him before, as all the others, been a few conference calls (national) with him, and I don't think there's a brighter mind out there when it comes to running a campaign.

My disenchantment is fairly specific, not across the board. In terms of policy and keeping campaign promises, he's doing pretty darn good. Although they're not getting enough credit.

[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.

[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?