The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

They aren't very articulate and I don't know what government has to do with "family values," but basically their views are pretty reasonable for anyone with common sense and respect for the rights of their fellow citizens. I don't know what the big issue is over their views.

tea party wrote:Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

I'll drink to 'em! Hear hear!

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
-Well duh, but do we just round them up and throw them in jail

Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
-Ok

Stronger Military Is Essential.
-Strongly disagree. The military should be DRASTICALLY downsized. We should be striving for peace, not sending people off for every piddling conflict. We should strive to be more isolationist IMO.

Special Interests Eliminated.
-Do you know what the difference is between a "special interest group" and an "interest group"? Well "special" interests are groups you don't like. The NRA, NEA, AARP etc... are all "special interest groups". It's totally subjective.

Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
-Sure, I love guns. I have a bunch of them. I can agree with this.

Government Must Be Downsized.
-Says the guy who wants a "stronger" military. (Which obviously only means bigger.) The idea of society is that together we can all accomplish more than we can individually. If the government is too small for the people it governs there's no point in even having one.

National Budget Must Be Balanced.
-Duh, and it was under Clinton. Clinton was the only president in an era surrounded by "fiscal conservatives" that actually had a surplus!

Deficit Spending Will End.
-Sometimes it has to be done, we can't just freeze government until the defect is paid off.

Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
-Tell that to Ronald Reagan.

Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
-Wrong, again united we stand, divided we fall. Less tax weakens government and, you had said earlier you want to balance the budget.

Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
-Wrong, businesses should have to pay their fair share like everyone else. Time has proven again and again that if you give tax breaks to businesses they just pocket the money.

Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
-I would love to see this happen, but the only way it EVER could is with money, taxes and bigger government. Imagine if public office actually paid a livable wage! (Being a state senator in some places pays well below the poverty line, and that's a high profile job. Imagine lower level civic servants. People just can't live on those wages.) Imagine if you could take paid time off of work to campaign.

Intrusive Government Stopped.
-This is subjective. What's intrusive? Government wants to give me the same basic health care enjoyed by every other developed nation? I'm glad to take it, I don't feel that's intrusive.

English As Core Language Is Required.
-Land of the free indeed.

Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
-What the hell are traditional family values? This is a pet peeve of mine. Don't try to subject your views over what's "traditional" and what's not.


-----


My problem with these "Teabaggers" is that they're a bunch of angry morons stomping around with signs spreading chain e-mails. They don't even understand what's going on, yet they're mad as hell about it. The whole thing is ridiculous. President Obama has done more for the United States in a year and a half than Bush did in 8 years in office. But then again, that's not saying much.

Skinsfan55 wrote:National Budget Must Be Balanced.
-Duh, and it was under Clinton. Clinton was the only president in an era surrounded by "fiscal conservatives" that actually had a surplus!

Why did the national debt go up by hundreds of billions of dollars in each of the Clinton "surplus" years?

What was Clinton's actual policy that lead to the economic boom?

Skinsfan55 wrote:My problem with these "Teabaggers" is that they're a bunch of angry morons stomping around with signs spreading chain e-mails. They don't even understand what's going on, yet they're mad as hell about it.

Government is running a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit and they are saying we need to cut spending, not further tax the life out of the economy. How is that not "understanding?" It sounds pretty bang on. Fiscal conservatism has been crushed in this country. You even describe Clinton who proposed government growth in every imaginable economic measure as a "fiscal conservative."

Also, don't we need to start getting away from the "angry morons" type hate speech? You don't have to agree with them, but what's wrong with letting everyone have their say w/o starting to pull the name calling out of the bag at the first time anyone not liberal tries to have a say?

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.

SF, in response to your comment.. In a perfect world, yes.. round dem up and ship em off. I don't know what the laws are, like if they get caught do they do actual jail time or just get deported? I live around many illegal immigrants (obviously as I'm in LP) and though they don't bother me or anyone in my area, they are here illegally and they need to go. Bye, peace out, don't let the airline gate hit you on your way.

I don't really know what is supposed to be implied (i.e., what policies) by the following claims:

tea party wrote:Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

And I disagree with these claims (or, at least, what I think they are standing for):

Stronger Military Is Essential.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.

How are these "common sense" or (as you appear to imply) uncontroversial?

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't really know what is supposed to be implied (i.e., what policies) by the following claims:

tea party wrote:Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

And I disagree with these claims (or, at least, what I think they are standing for):

Stronger Military Is Essential.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.

How are these "common sense" or (as you appear to imply) uncontroversial?

I agree with you in that I was agreeing with their ideals, not necessarily their policies, which is what you're getting at here. But here's my take. you had some redundancies between the lists, I stripped those out.

1) Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable - what I think they mean and I would agree with them on is we need government to stop taxing and regulating the jobs out of our economy. Taxes crushing business (and hence jobs) include corporate, social security, medicate and unending new taxes and government "fees." You add suffocating regulation, government forms, union rules, mandated benefits, ludicrous tort system, etc. are just unendingly causing businesses to give up and move overseas or shut down.

2) Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. I think what they mean here are term limits which eliminate career politicians. I'd agree with that.

3) English As Core Language Is Required. - What I think they mean and I would agree with is our government should communicate primarily in English.

4) Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. - I'm with you on this. I hope they are like Reagan, talk morality but don't have the government do anything about it. But since they bring it up this one scares me a bit.

5) Stronger Military Is Essential - We probably agree with each other and not the Tea Party is that a stronger military in our interest would be one defensive in nature and closer to home. They probably mean continuing wars and meddling in other's business overseas.

6) Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. - You and I disagree on this one, but I don't have anything new to add right now.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:1) Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable - what I think they mean and I would agree with them on is we need government to stop taxing and regulating the jobs out of our economy.

I suspect they would also support things like penalties for outsourcing, and protectionist laws. I could just about guarantee you that they want to see stiffer taxes / regulations / whatever placed on stuff coming from China.

3) English As Core Language Is Required. - What I think they mean and I would agree with is our government should communicate primarily in English.

? Two puzzlements here: First, that's what we do anyway. Second, why is this a big priority? (Why isn't "People should wear clothing in public" one of their planks?) So I suspect that they mean more than this, i.e., laws establishing English for businesses, schools, etc. Many of these people complain about having to press 1 for English.

Irn-Bru wrote:I could just about guarantee you that they want to see stiffer taxes / regulations / whatever placed on stuff coming from China.

Their platform really is fiscal conservatism. Not as in the fairy tale that Clinton was a "fiscal conservative," but the real thing. Most fiscal conservatives are pro-free trade. I would argue they all are if they actually get fiscal Conservatism. When you mention China though there are other issues. We do not get free trade back and they are skewing trade with their currency valuation. They are also constant human rights violators.

I"m not disagreeing with you that I would still give China free access to our markets, I'm just saying that you started with free trade and ended with China and that's actually combining issues. In general, I do not believe based on what they're saying they would reduce free trade ala pseudo fiscal conservatives Pat Buchannan or Ross Perot. But they would expand it ala Reagan.

Irn-Bru wrote:

3) English As Core Language Is Required. - What I think they mean and I would agree with is our government should communicate primarily in English.

? Two puzzlements here: First, that's what we do anyway. Second, why is this a big priority? (Why isn't "People should wear clothing in public" one of their planks?) So I suspect that they mean more than this, i.e., laws establishing English for businesses, schools, etc. Many of these people complain about having to press 1 for English.

On the priority, this for me would be far less then many of the other issues and I agree with you a lot of people are nuts on the "press 1 for English" thing, well put.

The schools and actions the government takes though to slow or even stop assimilation is a huge issue though. First of all, allowing a student in the US to graduate HS and not speaking English is a perfect example of just the way liberals will viciously handicap someone condemning them to an inability to get a good paying job in the pursuit of patting themselves on the back in order feel better about themselves. Second, English is a unifying force. A big driver for diverse ethnic populations of the past to come into the great American melting pot was a common language that facilitated them moving out of their ethnic enclaves.

A huge percent of my friends, including my wife, were born in other countries. They are all among those who came here legally respecting our laws, not the ones who disregarded them and committed a crime with their first act of entering this country. Specifically illegally entering this country. The English issue is almost universally one of the first they bring up, that America needs to make it difficult for immigrants to not speak English, not easy. It's a critical step in becoming an American. I'm not saying I think it because of them, only that my view is completely consistent with theirs.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I could just about guarantee you that they want to see stiffer taxes / regulations / whatever placed on stuff coming from China.

Their platform really is fiscal conservatism. Not as in the fairy tale that Clinton was a "fiscal conservative," but the real thing.

The "real thing" in my view is free trade with all nations, political entanglements with none. So I would dispute that China is a fundamentally different issue.

Most fiscal conservatives are pro-free trade.

Most are pro-something-like-free-trade. For example, they are in favor of huge legal documents like NAFTA which they (falsely) assume promote free trade. In my experience, most "fiscal conservatives" are not, really.

When you mention China though there are other issues. We do not get free trade back and they are skewing trade with their currency valuation.

(On currency valuation: and we aren't? ) Okay, let's suppose that we have free trade with China and then one day they go protectionist and do the currency manipulation that you mention. It doesn't follow that protectionism in response is either (a) an ethical or (b) an effective means of countering this.

In fact, if we maintain free trade, and China imposes protectionism, we win out on the deal in the long run. The Chinese people will be the ones most hurt by the measures. For example, if they undervalue their currency to promote exports, in real terms it just means that we get their stuff cheaper than we otherwise would and/or we benefit from holding their currency once its value is reestablished.

They are also constant human rights violators.

There is no more effective way, in my view, to combat human rights violations than to promote free trade. Wal-Mart has lifted more Chinese out of destitution and poverty than any policy ever could. The Chinese government was smart to liberalize insofar as it has made many of their citizens rich and everyone is better off (insofar as they have liberalized). But you can't allow commerce without culture and ideas following close behind: and the latter are what really win political / human rights struggles.

In general, I do not believe based on what they're saying they would reduce free trade ala pseudo fiscal conservatives Pat Buchannan or Ross Perot. But they would expand it ala Reagan.

I simply remain skeptical. I'm sure there are Tea Party advocates who would favor free trade, just like some of them would favor reducing the military and/or removing our military presence in other countries. But as a rule? I'm not convinced.

The schools and actions the government takes though to slow or even stop assimilation is a huge issue though. First of all, allowing a student in the US to graduate HS and not speaking English is a perfect example of just the way liberals will viciously handicap someone condemning them to an inability to get a good paying job in the pursuit of patting themselves on the back in order feel better about themselves.

Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the schools more than anything else. I'm anti-internal reform of this type. We cannot "fix" the problem that is our public schools by trying to mimic market signals. Besides, you don't need to speak English to get a good-paying job; many of these people remain within their communities, where you can speak Spanish (etc.) and get along fine. Imposing a national standard on them is imposing something that may have no real bearing on their lives.

Second, English is a unifying force. A big driver for diverse ethnic populations of the past to come into the great American melting pot was a common language that facilitated them moving out of their ethnic enclaves.

So let those who want to learn English do so. I still don't see what's compelling about some kind of national push for it.

Irn-Bru wrote:In fact, if we maintain free trade, and China imposes protectionism, we win out on the deal in the long run. The Chinese people will be the ones most hurt by the measures. For example, if they undervalue their currency to promote exports, in real terms it just means that we get their stuff cheaper than we otherwise would and/or we benefit from holding their currency once its value is reestablished

Right, I said I support free trade regardless. And it's for this reason. This is literally, and by literally I mean literally, an econ 101 subject, almost word for word. I'm not saying that to make fun of it as a simplistic point, my point is that there are a lot of us who know this and that we are best served economically by free trade, small government and less regulation and we had been shut out of the political process until the tea party came along. I'm not saying that all tea parties buy into this, what I'm saying is that those of us who buy into this are more and more supporting the tea party movement. Republicans are clueless about this and Democrats are hostile to it.

And frankly, Irn-Bru, the hardest part I see in your skeptical view of the tea party is that those with those views are already served by the Republican party. Why do they even need the tea partiers?

Irn-Bru wrote:Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the schools more than anything else. I'm anti-internal reform of this type. We cannot "fix" the problem that is our public schools by trying to mimic market signals. Besides, you don't need to speak English to get a good-paying job; many of these people remain within their communities, where you can speak Spanish (etc.) and get along fine. Imposing a national standard on them is imposing something that may have no real bearing on their lives.

Second, English is a unifying force. A big driver for diverse ethnic populations of the past to come into the great American melting pot was a common language that facilitated them moving out of their ethnic enclaves.

So let those who want to learn English do so. I still don't see what's compelling about some kind of national push for it.

The only things I advocated are that allowing students to graduate HS in the US not speaking English is a horrible thing to do to them and that our government shouldn't make it easy to deal with it in any language but English, so I'm not sure I see any "national push" that I'm advocating. But as to your first point on being a reason to get rid of government schools, I totally agree with that. And that would more then anything push that graduates learn English since running a school costs money and earning money in this country involves speaking English except for the one power which is not dependent on markets, government. Only government can create a sustainable school in this country the students don't learn English. That is what should be stopped. So I'm actually not advocating the government do anything to "push" English, only to stop pushing non-English.

Right, I said I support free trade regardless. And it's for this reason. This is literally, and by literally I mean literally, an econ 101 subject, almost word for word.

And when has that ever stopped widespread ignorance on a matter? (Actually I'd bet that a lot of econ101 textbooks are not in favor of this policy whatsoever.)

And frankly, Irn-Bru, the hardest part I see in your skeptical view of the tea party is that those with those views are already served by the Republican party. Why do they even need the tea partiers?

I think a lot of them are mad as hell and want some way to express it. A lot of Republicans go and speak at these events, and the top Republican leadership seems intent on using Tea Parties to their advantage. Many of the Tea Party people seem to think that this country was moving along pretty well and then Obama hit and all of the sudden we have socialism and state spying programs and all kinds of things which are either continuations of or expansions upon Bush's policies (not to mention the presidents before him, too).

If we weren't in the middle of our biggest recession / depression in a couple of generations, I don't think we'd see these people taking the streets, either. It really just seems to be sign of social unrest.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Right, I said I support free trade regardless. And it's for this reason. This is literally, and by literally I mean literally, an econ 101 subject, almost word for word.

Actually I'd bet that a lot of econ101 textbooks are not in favor of this policy whatsoever.

Economics is supported by mathematics so even liberal economists accept the principle that free trade is in our interest regardless of whether it's reciprocated. Econ's a lot more fun to take if you understand calculus because then the principles are a lot more intuitive. But basically any economist would agree regardless of ideology that free trade both ways is in everyone's interest. But providing free trade to your markets is in your interest even if the other side doesn't.

The out for liberal economists is that since liberalism is really a religion rather then a political ideology, they are sort of like Christians who are scientists. Sure, the principles can be studied, but God is behind it. For liberals of course God being government. Therefore, free trade is only effective when government controls it. Which of course isn't free trade. But explaining that to them is like explaining to a Christian God isn't behind science, you get nowhere.

Irn-Bru wrote:If we weren't in the middle of our biggest recession / depression in a couple of generations, I don't think we'd see these people taking the streets, either. It really just seems to be sign of social unrest.

I would add to that the Democrats making good on their claims that they were in fact worse then the horrible Presidency of George Bush. I didn't think it was possible, but their dramatic move towards socialized medicine and their pushing cap and tax and the VAT is going to destroy us. I've decided to register as a Republican for the first time in over 20 years and try to appeal to Republicans to change from within. I don't like the Libertarian party and being a small l libertarian is fine when you don't have the forces of evil and darkness lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi descending across the land. They've reached a level of evil intrusion into our lives and unfortunately the Republicans are our only hope. God help us.

But Irn-Bru, I'm telling you that while we are a minority, there are a lot more fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives then you think and we are more and more getting behind the movement. I'm not saying there aren't also the ones you're referring to, but I'm saying there are others and at this point it's our only hope. The Democrats are burying us in oppression.

I agree, I think liberty-minded people are greater in number than in the last few generations of Americans. A lot of that has been because information and ideas have become so easy to spread since the liberalization that the internet brought to the world. It's much easier to get past establishment voices and official stories than before.

This demand-list doesn't sound like a set of political principle: just a set of "yelps of the week"

Anybody who thinks "big government" is "intrusive" ought to explain why big business is benign. Business collects information on everything, calling it "targeted marketing". IBM used to advertise its data-gathering / data-mining ability...just buy DB2 and you can "do something" with he Web.

This is a government of the people..."we the people of the US". A corporation exists for shareholders and managers.

The power of trans-national corporations is so great that we need something like "Hamiltonian methods" to get at "Jeffersonian goals". For details, see Herbert Croly, The New Republic, and the people around Teddy Roosevelt.

When the banking institutions finally get to act like gambling organizations -- see Michael Moneyball Lewis and the charges against Goldman -- who defends us? SIFMA? (that's the trade association).

In each of the disconnected gripes, the Teabagers sem to have missed everything that matters.

- Deficit??? The Bush admin promised that a tax cut for rich people would yield a bonanza. Unfortunately, the same administration leaped, head-first, into endless wars in the middle east, at $50 - $100 billion at year.

- Gun rights are "sacred". What on earth? That admendment has an explanation, a whereas pointing to the state militias. The state National Guard is the state militia...not just in theory, but in direct history of each unit.

- Armed gangs -- the "militia movement" that blew up Oklahoma City and the non-governmental organizations celebrated in "The Sopranos" -- tend to public insecurity and disorder. Yes, I'll take the Army National Guard commander, responsible to the elected state governor, over any band of heavily armed pretend soldiers. The Guard is under civilian control, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The second is a feudal gang.

- Deficit spending got us out of the Great Depression. That's called World War II.

What would political principles look like? In the '70s, conservatives argued that the welfare state could not be allowed to grow to the point where government absorbed most of GNP. hat would choke innovation, they argued. That may or may not have been true, but it was a coherent thought about long-term trends on Western European government. (a) it might also have been irrelevant to the US, where the labor movement was never allowed to grow to more than about 20% of the work-force, and (b) by now nations face the grim problem that global corporations respond to no government and have no native country. Is CITI an American bank?

Simply, conservatism had an argument in the late '70s, but world reality may have changed. Same goes for liberalism / socialism, except that certain brute common needs remain:

- people tend to have kids.

- kids need schooling, as Samuel Adams (my favorite) argued in establishing a state school system. We must educate our youth or they will fall to tyranny, he argued.

- everyone gets sick

- kids get sick

- People get older (hopefully...the alternative is worse); at some point we cannot work anymore.

- American have a covenant with ourselves to provide whatever we cannot easily provide for our individual selves. That's why we are a country, rather than a collection of individual fiefdoms.

Oh, and this whole "tea party" phrase is repulsively stupid. The colonists objected to being taxed without their consent. When the government, to its astonishment, could not force Americans to pay a stamp tax, Parliament devised other taxes.

In the US, we vote for local, state, and federal officials who vote tax bills. The stamp act resistance and the final rebellions came because British-American colonists had not say on the Empire-wide tax.

Does the "tea party" movement claim that they have had no vote? Or only that their favored candidates lost the last election?

Note...a big one: the original list of TP "principles" cleaned off the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazi coating to the TP. No mention of the "Obama is a Kenyan" lies? Or the "Obama is Hitler" posters?

welch wrote:Anybody who thinks "big government" is "intrusive" ought to explain why big business is benign

It's not, this so completely misses the point. This is the way the Democrats like to frame the justification for their endless government intrusion. Do you trust greedy corporations or government to run your life? The answer, welch, is that note the "s" at the end of corporations. In a private marketplace, there are multiple corporations. Each individually acting in their own interest, but the ones that serve their customers the best win, until they get lazy or someone else comes and takes them. With government, you have people running it who don't have competition. That you distrust corporations if you were to approach this logically would convince you to chose them. Government is corrupt for the same reason the corporations are. But you don't have any choice.

Kaz wrote:

In a private marketplace, there are multiple corporations. Each individually acting in their own interest, but the ones that serve their customers the best win, until they get lazy or someone else comes and takes them.

Difference is that I can call up my congressman's local office and have a chance that the congressman will light a fire under a civil servant who misbehaves.

I can't call Verizon or GE and get response. Usually, I get a phone tree that invites me to "press one to be disconnected now, press 2 to be ignored for a half hour, etc"

I own shares in GE from my company savings plan, but those shares count for zero come the annual shareholders' meeting. Otherwise, I'd have fired Jeff Immelt long ago.

If a company delivers a bad product:

- there must be a company that makes a good one. Not many good airlines

- by the time enough people have switched products -- consider Detroit-made autos in the late '70s -- decades might have passed. We knew that gasoline was priced lower in the US. We knew that a well-made Volvo or Honda was a better car. It took fifteen or twenty years before GM and their buddies woke up to find that the US market wanted to buy anything-but-American

- Internally, a corporation is organized as an authoritarian hierarchy. "Don't be negative", as the warning goes. Few companies have a mechanism for correcting mistakes other than destroying an "under-performing" unit, or destroying an entire company.

- I expect to complain, organize, and try to vote out the slug-bags who make a mess of my local, state, or federal government. Often, that's not possible. Sixty years ago, political machines, yes, them, drew in complaints about government and responded. Today, an elected official is more likely to have gotten there by being independently wealthy. Newspapers praise Hizzoner for being "above politics", but that really means that Mayor Bloomberg could spend more than $1 billion each on the new Yankee and Shea stadiums, while closing libraries, firing teachers, letting the streets and bridges rot, closing firehouses, "trimming" the NYPD, etc etc. This is the introduction of corporate organization into government. In NYC, it started when Mayor Walker went broke and the only money came from the Federal relief funds, the bonds, and the tolls controlled by Robert Moses. This is not good.

- I never saw a tea-bagger organizing against the NYC stadium catastrophe. Likewise, who protested the new Nationals Stadium? And who pays for it?

Modern liberalism seems to have no idea beyond, "stop the bleeding, somehow". Modern conservatism is even behind modern liberalism.

- I expect to complain, organize, and try to vote out the slug-bags who make a mess of my local, state, or federal government.

Yet, it the members of the Tea Party do this, you, among others, do what you can to denigrate, and minimize them... I did notice that you used the term "teabaggers" to discribe them. How very... democratic.

I also notice that you mock their interest in protecting gun ownership and their narrow view of the 2nd Amendment (I happen to agree with you, btw), but seem to hold as sacred that the 10th Amendment has no value, and can be ignored whenever it proves inconvenient. (I happen to disagree most strongly, as it is the single greatest influence in my disgust over the means used by "progressives" to get their way)

I totally believe in what the Tea Party is all about and what they represent as far as the issues, but they should not be fielding any candidates, period!. There are to many groups, far to many groups.

Here is my simple thought.

I am a Conservative and I belong to the Republican Party. I want my party back and to rid my party of all RINOS, so our party can get back to its roots, and that way is the Conservative Way!.

No need for any other party or organizations needed!.

Skins Fan in Indy wrote:I totally believe in what the Tea Party is all about and what they represent as far as the issues, but they should not be fielding any candidates, period!

The discussion I've heard has been about whether they should endorse specific candidates. I've never heard discussion of them fielding a candidate.

welch wrote:Difference is that I can call up my congressman's local office and have a chance that the congressman will light a fire under a civil servant who misbehaves

Sixty out of sixty Democratic Senators and the vast majority of Democratic Congressmen just ignored that the public thought jobs and the economy were the priority over healthcare given we were in the Great Recession. The public also opposed the Democrat's healthcare bill, and yet they not only passed it but spent the last year doing nothing else. Yet you can with a straight face say it's easier to call a congressman and persuade him to make government give you what you want then it is to walk across the street from a corporation you dislike to their competitor?

welch wrote:there must be a company that makes a good one. Not many good airlines

First of all as I've pointed out many times in prior debates, every time examples of corporations being worse then government come up, they are the by far most regulated by government industries. Why do you suppose that is? And how is government going to fix it exactly? The airlines were horrible in the regulation days, just for different reasons. Cost being among the biggest.

welch wrote:- by the time enough people have switched products -- consider Detroit-made autos in the late '70s -- decades might have passed. We knew that gasoline was priced lower in the US. We knew that a well-made Volvo or Honda was a better car. It took fifteen or twenty years before GM and their buddies woke up to find that the US market wanted to buy anything-but-American

Note you pick a massively regulated industry again. And again you're saying government would have anticipated changing markets and fixed it? Sorry, government through regulation and blind support of labor unions were a ball and chain around change.

welch wrote:- Internally, a corporation is organized as an authoritarian hierarchy. "Don't be negative", as the warning goes. Few companies have a mechanism for correcting mistakes other than destroying an "under-performing" unit, or destroying an entire company.

Which is why I pointed out they do well until this happens when new companies come along and destroy them. That is except in guess what, regulated industries. Regulated by government.

welch wrote:- I expect to complain, organize, and try to vote out the slug-bags who make a mess of my local, state, or federal government. Often, that's not possible. Sixty years ago, political machines, yes, them, drew in complaints about government and responded. Today, an elected official is more likely to have gotten there by being independently wealthy. Newspapers praise Hizzoner for being "above politics", but that really means that Mayor Bloomberg could spend more than $1 billion each on the new Yankee and Shea stadiums, while closing libraries, firing teachers, letting the streets and bridges rot, closing firehouses, "trimming" the NYPD, etc etc. This is the introduction of corporate organization into government. In NYC, it started when Mayor Walker went broke and the only money came from the Federal relief funds, the bonds, and the tolls controlled by Robert Moses. This is not good.

Right, but you're advocating a system where they have this power. I'm advocating taking it away and letting the market drive these decisions.

welch wrote:- I never saw a tea-bagger organizing against the NYC stadium catastrophe. Likewise, who protested the new Nationals Stadium? And who pays for it?

Ignoring Nationals Stadium was built before the movement started, I don't think they are recognizing your right to assign the issues to them they need to get involved in. And if they try to get on top of every issue then they will accomplish nothing. Just picking an issue that's important to you and asking where they were is completely pointless. And ironic, I' msure they'd agree with you on this.

welch wrote:Modern liberalism seems to have no idea beyond, "stop the bleeding, somehow". Modern conservatism is even behind modern liberalism.

Actually the liberals are dismembering us causing gushing bleeding. The Republicans have been letting us die a slower death of a thousand cuts. The teabaggers are at least advocating an end to the two party spend til we drop madness.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
-Well duh, but do we just round them up and throw them in jail

Yes, they came here illegally for employment ... give them jobs making license plates. Maybe the word would spread that the land of plenty is plenty inconvenient.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Stronger Military Is Essential.
-Strongly disagree. The military should be DRASTICALLY downsized. We should be striving for peace, not sending people off for every piddling conflict. We should strive to be more isolationist IMO.

That is about how I see it too ... as did George Washington.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Special Interests Eliminated.
-Do you know what the difference is between a "special interest group" and an "interest group"? Well "special" interests are groups you don't like. The NRA, NEA, AARP etc... are all "special interest groups". It's totally subjective.

Special interests are counter to the principles of this nation where "All men are created equal". How is it that a particular group can be considered a "special interest"? It's a label given by politicians looking to pander to and gain support from a particular group by promising special treatment for their votes. Out with them!

Skinsfan55 wrote:Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
-Sure, I love guns. I have a bunch of them. I can agree with this.

Rational choice. The 2nd amendment reins supreme among the various rights, as the 2nd provides the means to secure the others.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Government Must Be Downsized.
-Says the guy who wants a "stronger" military. (Which obviously only means bigger.) The idea of society is that together we can all accomplish more than we can individually. If the government is too small for the people it governs there's no point in even having one.

The government does need to be reduced, and a strong military and small government are not mutually exclusive ideas. A strong military based on defense, not intervention in other nations affairs is the key. While the vast percentage of government today are engaged in activities not sanctioned by the constitution. The "general welfare" claim has been blatantly abused by the Federal Government to intrude and manage everything from education to healthcare to drugs. Out with the department of education, department of labor, department of homeland security, department of the transportation, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, CIA, NSA, and consolidate into Department of Defense.

Skinsfan55 wrote:National Budget Must Be Balanced.
-Duh, and it was under Clinton. Clinton was the only president in an era surrounded by "fiscal conservatives" that actually had a surplus!

Total myth, like Santa Claus .. there was no surplus, just theft of the Social Security funds reallocated to the general fund to show a balanced budget ... yet the national debt grew larger, proving no surplus.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Deficit Spending Will End.
-Sometimes it has to be done, we can't just freeze government until the defect is paid off.

Based on the structure of the monetary system, there is no way to operate without debt, as every dollar created has debt attached to it. Consequently, you can never eliminate debt because the very medium of paying that debt has debt attached.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
-Tell that to Ronald Reagan.

Might as well blame Lincoln, for all the good that will do. Partisan politics and the blame game only empowers the criminals to continue robbing us blind. Forget who started it, and focus on ending it instead.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
-Wrong, again united we stand, divided we fall. Less tax weakens government and, you had said earlier you want to balance the budget.

Providing more money to government won't reduce the deficit anymore than providing more cocaine to a coke head will reduce his addiction. It's the endless supply of money being stolen from the people that has allowed the government to spend more money than it had, or needed to spend. We are literally providing the funding for our own enslavement, and the slave mentality must be eliminated. I OWN MY LABOR ... IT MY PROPERTY, not the government's property.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
-Wrong, businesses should have to pay their fair share like everyone else. Time has proven again and again that if you give tax breaks to businesses they just pocket the money.

The vast percentage of corporations pay no tax now ... and time has proven over and over again that when you raise taxes on business .. they simply pass on the costs to their customers (you and me), which reverses the needed personal income tax reduction. This is the elementary foolishness of the liberal mindset that only sees in single dimensions. It's literally grade school logic that escapes the "Tax the rich" idiocy. Taxes, in any form is simply diverted to burden those that can least afford it, but forced to pay it. This has been true FOREVER.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
-I would love to see this happen, but the only way it EVER could is with money, taxes and bigger government. Imagine if public office actually paid a livable wage! (Being a state senator in some places pays well below the poverty line, and that's a high profile job. Imagine lower level civic servants. People just can't live on those wages.) Imagine if you could take paid time off of work to campaign.

I don't know what world you live in, but the public sector is living large compared to the private sector these days ... and guess what? They produce NOTHING. Take a little stroll down to the Fairfax County Government Center ... COUNTY GOVERNMENT ... and see that Palatial spectacle of government run amuck ... then you'll discover why they have all those cops checking window stickers across the county.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Intrusive Government Stopped.
-This is subjective. What's intrusive? Government wants to give me the same basic health care enjoyed by every other developed nation? I'm glad to take it, I don't feel that's intrusive.

For those who seek something for nothing .. I can see where you'd like that. But for the government to "Give" you something, they have to steal it from others in order to do so. I don't owe you ... and I don't consider it liberty for the government to steal from me and "Give" it to you. It's theft ... pure and simple. And be careful ..a government large enough to "Give" you everything is large enough to take everything away.

Skinsfan55 wrote:English As Core Language Is Required.
-Land of the free indeed.

Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
-What the hell are traditional family values? This is a pet peeve of mine. Don't try to subject your views over what's "traditional" and what's not.

Maybe traditional values are too difficult to define for you .. so maybe it would be easier to define what they are not? They are not two men wearing sun dresses and getting married .. that would be one example.

Skinsfan55 wrote:-----


My problem with these "Teabaggers" is that they're a bunch of angry morons stomping around with signs spreading chain e-mails. They don't even understand what's going on, yet they're mad as hell about it. The whole thing is ridiculous. President Obama has done more for the United States in a year and a half than Bush did in 8 years in office. But then again, that's not saying much.

Oh yes they do ... they understand EXACTLY what's going on ... they see that the media manufactures lies about the Tea Party and the racism and violence, while refusing to cover tens of thousands of illegal mexicans parading and flying the Mexican flag and threatening a race war with whites. They see this "Healthcare Reform" as another fascist move by the Traitor-In-Cheif and his band of Wall Street criminals who are looting the treasury, all to the applause of the mentally insane left wing loons. They understand that the tax and spend crooks (democrats and republicans) are purposely destroying the nation, and that the general public ... especially on the left, haven't the intellectual capacity to recognize an armed robbery in progress in broad daylight.

What is truly surprising is the number of "people" who literally defend this massive theft called personal income tax. It's almost as if some people really relish the role of being a slave.

What is painfully obvious at this point is that a significant segment of the population refuse to take "yes" for an answer ... and would actually prostrate themselves to the hand that feeds them.

How is it that a once proud, self respecting, and self sufficient group of Americans can wind up becoming such submissive, sniveling slaves, bowing to and serving criminal elitists?

SF55:

My problem with these "Teabaggers" is that they're a bunch of angry morons stomping around with signs spreading chain e-mails. They don't even understand what's going on, yet they're mad as hell about it. The whole thing is ridiculous.

What a clueless and ignorant statement... I stongly suggest that you do some research regarding whom makes up the Tea Party movement.... your snide and crude name calling aside.

Welch said:

The state National Guard is the state militia...not just in theory, but in direct history of each unit.

I missed this, somehow. Fundamentally erroneous. While nominally under the control of the Governor of the State or Territory... guess who funds, and, oh by the way, has ultimate control of the National Guard any time it is either required, or even simply politically expedient. Hint: it's not the State (see "TheLittle Rock 9", when Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard in order to prevent the governor from using them to prevent the desegregation of Central High School).
Just look above the left tunic pocket of each National Guard soldier or airman. Notice that it DOES NOT say "MD Army National Guard" It DOES say either "U.S. Army" or "U.S. Air Force".

While most National Guard units claim lineage to historical state militia units (I served for a few years with a unit that claimed lineage to one of the most famous of all state militia units, General Joshua Chamberlain's 20th Maine Infantry), it is only of historical value.

Many states do have a small Militia that is separate from the National Guard. Their primary purpose is to serve during time of declared State emergency during times when the National Guard is either absent, or requires additional bodies.