The other thread was reaching it's limit, so I'm opening this one to make room.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:05, Mon 27 Sept 2010.

Anybody miss Richard Nixon?

Nope.

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.or...rdering-GLBTQ-people

Once again, I'm at a loss for words.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:45, Thu 09 Sept 2010.

The person Randvall was talking to was clearly a bigot but it could well be that randvall himself was momentarilly clueless and didn't catch the reference.

What's the Q stand for? I've never seen that in the Acronym before.

At a guess queer. Though that might seem redundant with Gay Lesbian Bisexual transgendered already covered...

Keep in mind there's no such thing as a "Tea Party President" or "Tea Party Representative."  It's a movement with many flavors and anyone can start up a tea party and claim to be president, no matter how stupid or biased they are.

For example, a person can claim to be a "President of the Gay Alliance," but that doesn't mean they actually speak on behalf of gays or are even part of any nationally recognized group of homosexuals.

This underscores the need to actually have one collective official group, rather than a million groups around the nation who can say whatever they want and have it attributed to "Tea Partiers."

Anybody can call themselves president of the Nazi party doesn't mean that somewhere, somehow the really nice Nazis are being drowned out by imitators.

It seems as if only stupid or biased people count themselves as members from all I've seen.

Except the leaders, they seem to be very smart; they have great practical knowledge of psychology, anyways.

Is it wrong to assume something about the message of a movement based on the sorts of people that movement attracts?

Just for a point of contrast- hypothetically anyone can call themselves an Imam, and Islam is a somewhat reviled and misunderstood group in the US. Yes moderate Imam's still manage to get into teh occasional news program.
Anyone can call themselves the leader of a tea party movement, they claim to be misunderstood and portrayed negatively, yet somehow the moderate tea partiers never seem to make the news or any media- the closest anyone gets is those complaining about how misunderstood tehy are without actually decrying the people who were recorded making them seem that way.
If the tea parties are really misunderstod where are the more moderate platforms from the more moderate tea partiers?

Although I will look into any "Moderate Tea Party" link that you can provide, if there are any, since I'm not going to criticize their inability to get on the big news; I have a hankering of how that sort of Media works.

My criticism would be, however, that they continue to use such a name despite it being both a fresh concept and having such negative connotations.

The name isn't Sacred, it just doesn't make sense to cling to it if your ideas would otherwise seem legitimate and reasonable.

Well it does have the advantage of numbrs and if you somehow believed you might be able to organize them into a cohesive group behind your ideas, possibly believing the hype about how misrepresented the average tea partier is...
this is a group that started out as largely disaffected Republicans who believed they were not being represented by the Republican party so the whole 'you aren't representing us' claim is almost a part of the sub culture.

Politics is a funny thing, isn't it?

As you may have gathered from previous posts, I don't harbor much like for the Tea Party.

So, surprisingly enough, I am immensely pleased that O'Donnell won the primary in Delaware. Because she just handed the state, and likely the senate, to the Democrats.

So... go Tea Party. Never thought I'd say that.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:36, Wed 15 Sept 2010.

I hereby make a prediction; some couple years from now (whenever the World Trade Center starts getting built, or whatever will replace it), there will be a sense of "public outrage" projected by the Media at the inclusion of an Islamic prayer room for Muslim employees, for the purposes of increasing the Media's Ad revenue.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:28, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

That's because the Tea Party doesn't have their own media outlet (and also likely because of personal experiences and biases on your part). Democrats tend to think Republicans are stupid, and vice versa - mostly because of exposure and a high correlation between 'stupid' and 'loud'.

If it helps at all, I consider myself more closely aligned with the Tea Party than with any other currently active political party.

And part of this is specifically because the Tea Party represents a democracy of ideas you simply don't see anywhere else. If you look at the Republicans, there is a requirement that they toe certain core values. With the Dems, there's a wider space for deviation, but it's still basically the same story. They each cater to their core - and to no one else. With Tea Party, there's no central authority to say 'no, you will not debate, you will not run as a candidate'. Anyone can put their name on the handbill, whether they're pro-Muslim, anti-tax, pro-Choice, pro-Gun candidates, or just plum crazy. Tea Party candidates, at least for the time being, are chosen based on criteria other than the letter behind their name.

It is also a strong lash-back against Republican neo-conservatives, especially strong, overarching government, and specifically against figures like Bush and Cheney. I'd be surprised if anyone here would prefer the Republican party continue fielding candidates like Bush or Cheney for office.

I highly suspect you find yourself closely aligned with the idea of the Tea Party, rather than with what they actually believe.  You know, that whole "small guy standing up against the big guy".

Only it's more like "really stupid guy convincing everybody else to burn the local library down" in reality.

There's certainly no Democracy of Ideas; they're the same ideas that have been going around for a hundred years, some others for thousands of years.

1. That America was founded as a Christian Nation, in the sense that would allow the abolishment of State-Church separation for Christian religions.

2. That Glen Beck is the most intelligent man in America.

These obviously aren't the only beliefs, but these are certainly the only ones I've been hearing lately coming from the messages on Facebook from my friends who are Tea-Partiers.

Just recently I got a vid-post talking about how this "great man" was giving tours at D.C. on the "real America".  It linked to such an offensive thing; some guy giving lectures on buildings constructed decades or more after the death of certain presidents, using them as proof of the founding father's intentions for Christianity to be the foundation of Government.

And pardon my personal experiences towards truth and my biases towards stupidity, but they do tend to help me make an accurate judgment of the stupidity of such statements, whether one considers it biased or not.

Moreso, the people who repeat these statements are being stupid, but the people who start these misconceptions are malevolently cunning and do not seek the well-being of the country or the people who believe their lies.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:22, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

I'm not sure why you can in the same post say your primary source of information are your friends and facebook, and claim any sort of position of making an 'accurate judgment'.

My friends who are Tea Partiers are extremely anti-Bush, strongly anti-Obama, but overall anti-Government Meddling. They are more likely to follow Stephen Colbert than Glen Beck. They follow Ron Paul, but hate Sarah Palin.

And that's the point. You can't act as though your friends are the majority of Tea Partiers, nor can I act like mine are. They both have their beliefs, and they compete for attention using similar channels. In the end, what they believe will be tested by normal people like everyone else on this forum. Beliefs which are inconsistent or stupid will (in theory) fail, and those which are more inspirational, interesting or maybe just right will succeed.

On the more political tack, I disagree with the Democratic party, but I *strongly* disagree with where the Republican party is going. The Tea Party movement will, if nothing else, cause them pause. Right now they're trying to capture that energy of the Tea party and redirect it back in, but that's foolish, 20th century thinking. The Tea party isn't organized like that. There are no leaders to capture. Until the Reps actually change their IDEAS, they'll never capture the Tea party. And if they capture the ideas of the Tea Party - less government, less interference, more freedom, more individual rights - I think everyone wins.

And if they capture the ideas of the Tea Party - less government, less interference, more freedom, more individual rights - I think everyone wins.

I think you're being rather over optimistic here. The Tea Party is no different than the Republican party. The whole movement is being bankrolled by the Koch brothers. If the Tea Party does win, the only that'll change will be that a different group of billionaires get all the contracts and government money. I guarantee you that you will not see a smaller government or more freedom.

Keep in mind that Koch industries is the only private corporation which is more beuracratic and paranoid than the Federal Government. BUt I doubt everyone calling themselves Tea Party are financed by the same people. On the other hand leadership has emerged, and will continue to emerge, simply because that's how humans work. some Tea Party groups may not like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, but they are certainly the acknowledged leaders of the movement on a national scale.

The bigger question is how things will stabilize out of this- the whole rise of the tea party has destabilized the Republican party, with the potential for gains in Reform and Libertarian parties as well as the possibility of the Tea Party actually becoming a real political party.

With history as a guide there is a good chance that once the Republicans are gone the Democrats have a 50/50 chance of following, not being able to campaign as the 'lesser evil' which is pretty much the current message. Where things go from there is hard to say...

Three facts put heavy doubt on them actually knowing what the Tea Party movement is, also.

1. They "follow" Stephen Colbert rather than Glen Beck?  Stephen Colbert is an amalgamation parody of Fox News Pundits, including Glen Beck.  The distinction is, truly, a matter of your friends mistaking Stephen Colbert's act to be genuine and thinking Glen Beck's the parody, which really doesn't help your argument against my opinion.

2. Ron Paul is against the actual Tea Party movement, you know, the one that started in 2008 to stop Health Care reform.  The Ron Paul Movement started in at least 1988, when he first started running for President, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party.

3. Most of the people in the Tea Party movement, right up until the end, supported George Bush; people I knew said they loved George Bush and anybody who didn't support the president was unpatriotic are now denying they ever liked him.

Regardless of whether your friends supported him, this is the average mindset of the people I meet in daily life who preach these positions.
--------

I would not say "well, not all Nazis are bad" just because some well-meaning people who share contrary views to the Nazis nevertheless insist on calling themselves Nazis.

I know the history of the Tea Party Movement, I am eveloped heavily in Tea Party culture, both in radio and my every-day life, my Business English teacher started off her first class with a completely unrelated tangent about how stupid she thinks Socialism is.

If your friends wish to call themselves members of a group which on the whole is a collection of people who basically parrot whatever their Media-Pastors spoonfeed them, I'm not going to give them special treatment in judgment.  They don't have to assume the title of Village Idiot.

I don't call myself Catholic and get all uppity when people say I consider someone who protects Child Molesters from prosecution as sacred because "oh, I don't believe in all that".

They could more properly call themselves Libertarians, or heck, part of the Ron Paul movement like all of the other people who are part of the Ron Paul movement and think the exact same things they do.
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:44, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

Acknowledged by who? Fox news? Consider the sources. It's strange that Ron Paul, who is closer to the stated Tea party goals, and was put forward as the first Tea Party candidate gets less press time than Glenn Beck - but Ron Paul doesn't work at a TV station which serves as a political tool either.



With all due respect, I don't think you know a whit about my friends - or what they know about Colbert. Colbert as a character is part of a larger political character. Granted, Colbert himself (the actor) is moderate democrat. But that's why they're only 'more likely to', not actually 'follow' :)





http://www.digitalmeetingcente...he-tea-party/851883/




Source please.

Glenn Beck specifically said in an interview that he is not, and does not want to be, a Tea Party leader and is not properly considered a leader of that party.

http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...dition1.4bf50f3.html

No, Ron Paul is not the tea party leader, or even a tea party leader, he is opposed by the tea party. Which *he* acknowledges is being led by Palin and Beck.

That's my understanding to some extent.  Both Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are "proud" (that's the quote in the article you posted) that they helped inspire people who became Tea Partiers, but neither is any kind of leader or head of one.  Paul is a libertarian, and Beck is a conservative talk show host.  The Tea Parties have a variety of types and memberships with some overriding ideologies in common but no cohesive center, which is why the Republican Party wants to solidify them as Republicans.  However, that may mean the Republican party itself has to get back to its conservative roots.  It's an interesting dynamic in the conservative movement.

I don't know much about what Ron Paul is doing, but despite what Glenn Beck says he considers himself to be, he did hold a Rally outside the Lincoln Memorial that drew 87,000+ supporters, mostly Tea Partiers.

In so much as Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Glenn Beck is a leader of this movement.  He draws the crowds, makes the speaches, and the people repeat what he says and carry out the actions he suggests.



Their cohesive center is one of Dominionism; they desire a Christian Government, with Christian Leaders, and Christian Law.  Their viewpoint is Reformist, but they speak as if it is Restorationist, and pray on people uninformed or misinformed about American History in order to weave this idea that what they want is what was.

And it was what once was, before we decided we decided we wanted Liberty. If we had wanted that, we'd now be part of the British Commonwealth.

Ironically if we had remained a part f teh Brittish Commonwealth we would probably be showing greater respect for plurality of religion than we do now.

Fair enough, I'm still not sure though whether you've said to the contrary that they'd be more likely to follow an amalgamation of all personalities spoken of than any one in particular, which I do not think can be any better than what I said.



http://www.digitalmeetingcenter.com/ron-pauls-shocking-message-to-the-tea-party/851883/</quote>

Right, but addressing the Tea Party or having a view on the Tea Party does not make you a member of the Tea Party, or I'd be part of the Tea Party.



I concede that this is an argument from personal experience, and is thus poor evidence and reasoning.

I'm sure if I had the time right now I could hunt down video-clips of senators or talk-show pundits expressing extreme devotion to Bush at one date, then in the other date calling him a "stealth liberal" or "not conservative enough" or "I knew he was a bad egg from the start".

I'm not the Daily Show, though, and regardless my argument isn't based on those anyways, and thus isn't a very good one for me to make.

None of your claims are supported by the article you included. Some of your refuted claims have never been made by anyone prior (for instance, that Ron Paul is a tea party leader. He is not, nor is he a Libertarian party member - but he embraces the Tea Party and Libertarian ideas, has been put forward as candidates for both (against his wishes), and serves as inspiration for members of both parties.

Is Glenn Beck a Tea Party leader? He is certainly a leader, and he does seem to be claiming followers in the Tea Party (Ron Paul is the same, but has made it absolutely clear he will not be a Tea Party member - he's staying on the Republican ticket. I don't believe Beck has made any such loyalties clear.) However, I don't feel comfortable saying that he's a tea party leader insofar that it implies some sort of set Tea Party organization, cohesive beliefs, some sembelance of internal agreement, and a majority support - none of which is the case. It would be like saying the guy who just set up a church down the street and is packing it in every Sunday is now a 'Christian leader'.

No, it would be more like saying a guy who puts on a show called the 700 club with millions of viewers who send in donations is a Christian Leader.
It isn't a formal appointed kind of leadership, but if people are following then whoever they are following is the leader.

There are a very large number of political parties in the US, yet only three parties and an independant mange to have federal representation.  As an Australian I've got to ask, how does this happen?  How have two parties managed to almost completely dominate your federal political system?

Probably because there are only two issues worth discussing......either for, or against.

Just kidding. :)

I believe it's related to how the electoral system here works. It's very all-or-nothing, as opposed to the Australian and British systems. Because it's all-or-nothing, it encourages people to pool their resources and get something they can tolerate, rather than push for something they specifically - it reduces diversity in the electorate.

Tycho explained this very well a while ago, so overall I would defer to him.

Last year I joined the TEA Party here in southeast Texas. We have members of all types.. Reps, Dems, all colors, and alot of religions.  Wanna know it's about here.  Money, it's all about money.  Nothing else..  We are tired of paying taxes to a government who waste our hard earned money and gets nothing done.

I like Glenn Beck because he uses people's own words against them.  He doesn't take small clips and turn them out of context like EVERY OTHER NEWS PROGRAM.  No, he puts them out the same way the person who said them did.  I don't like Glenn Beck because he's a mormon, who(mormons) believe anyone who's not mormon is going to hell.  I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  They are hilarious, but I go to them for laughs, not political views.

I don't agree with everything my fellow TEA Partiers want, but what we all agree upon is that our government if continued to be ran the same way will not get any better.  I live in Texas, but hate the Bush family, but I'm also smart enough to know that while things got bad under his admin. it got worse under his admin once dems. took over congress.

Here's something interesting that in some part relates to the Koran burning conversation...

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...lit%28gw040073%29%29

Was looking up Guy Fawkes day and I came across that; apparently that whole Guy Fawkes thing was about group of extremists trying to plant explosives in parliament and asassinate the non-catholic members.

Yeah, Guy Fawkes was not actually a great guy to emulate :P Basically when England was becoming aggressively anti-Catholic, some Catholics thought the best way to stop that was to blow up parliament. Of course, whether he succeeded or failed, it would not have helped his cause, and it would not have been a good thing to do.

This is steeped in history, going back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  Originally, the parties broke off from two theories: 1) that the federal government should have more power, or 2) that the states should retain their sovereignty and the federal government's power should be limited.  Our government is based on a collective of sovereign powers (states) that have voluntarily ceded certain amounts of their sovereignty to be a part of a federal government (the United States).

Even though the issues have splintered time and again, it all typically comes back to these two ideas.  Now, however, those who want more power with the federal government (democrats) have also adopted other causes, primarily liberalism and (to some extent) socialistic ideals.  Meanwhile, the other party (republicans) want the federal government to remain small and the power to remain for local governments to make decisions instead of on a giant federal level.  They have also adopted causes, such as limited taxation (which effectively also limits local governmental power), conservative causes, and the support of capitalism and a free market.

Add the electoral system in a republic to this and you have a strong foundation for a two party system.  Third parties sometimes make their way in, but these two parties have espoused enough of the ideals that tend to go together that the third parties can't usually make any real headway.

Of course, half of the reason for the rise of Libertarians, the Tea Party, and perhaps the Green Party, is that the Dems and Reps have become, increasingly, two sides of the same coin. The Republicans say they will shrink government, but when they get into office, they make it bigger. Then the Democrats get into office and do exactly what they promised, and make it bigger again.

Good point.  Bush ran into this problem in a big way.

He rejected democratic spending measures, and then decided to pass them in a smaller way.  I.e., these were democrat measures using tax dollars to pay for various programs (special interest or otherwise).  This got him into trouble with Republicans, but also with Democrats who said he didn't go far enough.

Then, when the democrats took Congress and Obama took the White House, they pointed at Bush as the problem, and some republicans agreed.  The real hypocrisy, though, was that the democrats in congress wanted Bush to spend much more, and if he had, it would have hurt the economy that much more.

So the political genius behind the democrat strategy was that they made it look like it was Bush's fault for the economy, people believed them, and then they passed something that was Bush x10 (such as the Stimulus Package).  By claiming something was "change" or different, when it was simply a mass augmentation of something that went bad (Bush's spending), they got something that future generations will pay for.  The further genius of it, though, is that the delay in the costs will allow them to blame whomever is in power when things go bad, even though the cause of it is happening today.  (This is essentially a buy on credit scam--interest will come due.)

I would have to completel;y disagree with that analysis. To begin with the last 3 Republican presidents have raised spending, not just Bush. Reagen paid for it with debt rather than taxes, but he still grew teh government.
Secondly both of the last 2 Republican presidents have driven teh economy into teh ditch. Clinton managed to rescue teh economy but he also did it with expanded government. Bush Jr. increased spending but also cut taxes massively, expecting the increased revenue from the growing economy to meet his demand for money and it didn't happen, so instead we wound up with inflation as he had more money printed.
Republicans like to portray themselves as being for small governemnt, but really they are about different programs- spying on teh US people instead of helping them, big borther over Uncle Sam.
I personally hope we can get to a point where the main choices are Libertarian versus Democrat, then I think we will have both wheels on the right axle, but the tea Party is something else entirely. Bush ran for president making promises to Conservative Christians to help motivat them in voting, then appointed Ashcroft in return. When scandals hit his administration the first time he threw Ashcroft under the bus, which easrned him the animosity of the Christian identity movement, which then started their 'tea parties' in protest, banding together with (and taking over) anti-tax groups, similar to what they had done previously with the taxpayer party.

Indeed, from my understanding, there has not been a 'true' Republican president in my lifetime. Reagan at least had the excuse that he was basically weaponizing the budget.

I am hesitant to attach the economy too closely to any president (for a couple of reasons). However, my understanding is that the economy boomed (short-term, anyway) under Reagan compared to Carter, did okay under Bush Sr., and really only crashed in the last few months of Bush Jr., for reasons I would not attach to him. However, none of the three were any good for our debt.

I'd also be hesitant to say what 'Republicans' are for. It's the big tent - some Republicans are for small government, others aggressively pro-Christian, some for greater government power, a few warhawks. There's not a lot that binds them together. Thanks to Reagan, it's a real stewpot.

I could definitely do with the Neocons losing power though to more Libertarian sentiments. Right now I generally find myself disagreeing with ALL the mainstream political candidates.

The ones who really get me are the ones who claim Obama is the antichrist (to actually make this thread about religion for once) Have these people read the job desription? World conquest, and a thousand years of 'false' peace and prosperity for all but the select few who refuse to wear the mark of the beast?
All of that guarunteed by a divine entity, now *that's* what i call a campaign platform. Sure tehre is hell to pay in teh end, but if people are okay with putting problems off for our grandchildren to deal with imagine how easilly they'll accept leaving it to their great^31 grand children.

Hmm...so, Democrats tricked everyone into thinking that Bush's spending was actually Bush's fault?  Color me skeptical.

Also, why is it that spending is always "paid for by our grandkids" but tax cuts never are?  Bush's tax cuts cost the country somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars, but republicans never seem to view that as being "paid for by our grandkids."

If you ask me, what is "paid for by our grandkids" is budget deficits, whether caused by too much spending, or by too little revenue.  Deficits don't care which the sources is, it leads to debt either way.  And throughout my life time, Republicans have run up bigger long-run deficits than democrats (and, as an aside the only president to run a balanced budget in my lifetime was a democrat).

I'd hardly every claim that the dems are perfect; there's certainly plenty to complain about, even if you share most of their views.  But I do get rather frustrated with the rather common conservative position that absolutely everything and everything is the fault of the dems (even the stuff the republicans did!).

I've said this before, but I think the main problem with american politics is not that one group of politicians or another are evil, but that we american voters demand dishonest and absurd claims, election cycle after election cycle.  Want to know why politicians lie so much?  Because we punish them for doing anything else.  Want to know why we have such huge budget deficits?  Because any politician that stands up and says "I can't lower your taxes without cutting services you actually use" or "I can't give you more services without raising taxes" gets booed of the stage.  Instead we continue to vote, year after year, for people who promise to fix all our problems without costing us a penny.  Year after year we vote for people who tell us the other side is evil, rather than actually telling us we have to make a sacrifice to fix things (or, if they say that, they never tell us what sacrifices need to be made, so that everyone thinks someone else will have to do it).

This is why I'm not particularly impressed with the tea party movement.  It's not something new, it's just more of the old, but louder and angrier.  It's all the same hate-the-other-guys stuff that we've seen before.  They talk a good game about the budget, but ask them what they're willing to give up to get a balanced budget, and they're like any other politicians, promising that only the other guys will have to suffer.

Back to katisara's point, the parties are getting somewhat undifferentiated, which is what is causing things like the Tea Party to be successful.  I don't think your portrayal of Reagan is exactly accurate either.  What Reagan did was lower taxes, which resulted in an increased debt to fund the already overlarge government (thanks in part to Carter and a democrat congress).  However, because people's taxes were lowered, they were able to prosper and create capital.

For reference, the four pillars of Reaganomics were:
1.Reduce government spending,
2.Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3.Reduce government regulation
4.Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

This is a pillar of republican belief and does not increase the government, but rather decreases its regulation.  So I think your facts are somewhat wrong.


Actually, this is inaccurate.  Clinton managed to ride on the successful end of the Cold War, which dramatically decreased government defense spending.  He got elected just in time to wait for those things (thanks to Reagan and Bush), and then took credit.  Meanwhile, he passed things that killed the economy a few years later.  If you compare his spending to Reagan and Bush, you will see that Clinton spent more and increase government regulation if you simply take out Cold War spending.  He also passed things like fair housing acts that required lenders to grant loans to those who are not necessarily able to pay for the loans (or manage their money).  Well, fast forward six or seven years and you see what that did to the housing market once the program became fully realized and they started all defaulting on loans.

So I stick by my analysis.  You are tossing blame at presidents without backing it up with support.  Look at the true cause of the problems and you will find that the last two recessions are caused primarily by Carter and Clinton, once their deferred policies became fully realized.  (And I don't think anyone stands up for Carter's extreme tax rates.)  W. Bush had a part to play in this latest one, but that was only when he started spending and regulating like a democrat (as I mentioned earlier), and which supports katisara's point.

So look at what's happening now.  Obama passes a huge stimulus that will inject the economy like credit card spending.  Years from now we will feel the impact of that (just like with Clinton and Carter), and then, as I said, the democrats will blame the republicans for what Obama really got us into.


Back this up with support.
The truth is that Republicans tend to believe that the federal government should stick to its primary role of providing for the national defense, international relations, and governing interstate commerce.  So yes, you are right to the extent they focus on these issues, but the problem is that your assumption is inaccurate.

Republicans are not necessarily for "small" government.  They are for a government with limited powers.  In other words, don't have the government take people's money and give it to other people.  Don't expand government powers.  Rather, keep the federal government's role focused.  This is consistent with my previous post.

That's not what I said.  What I said was Bush rejected Democrat spending and submitted a less expensive package.  Then democrats hypocritically accused him of creating an economic crisis when what they demanded would have been that much worse.  But they don't bring that point up...

Tax cuts are different.

If you pay a stimulus package (Obama's package), then there are two results.  Either you tax more (and thus limit capital to invest in the private economy) or you print money (and thus inflation rises and the stimulus is diluted).  These are both losing propositions.

If you give a tax cut, the money stays with the private sector to improve the economy.  Therefore, a tax cut is an investment in the economy and therefore does not have the same impact on kids and grandkids.  We also don't borrow at the same rate for tax cuts, whereas a stimulus is causing us to borrow from China and others and making the dollar worth less overall.

Think of it like this:  a stimulus package is a credit card and some day you have to pay the interest; a tax cut is an investment, and if the government handles it correctly, it will pay off and result in a net gain.


And if you read your history book, you will see that he (Clinton) has Reagan and Bush to thank for that, as I mentioned in my previous post.  They cleared the way for a balanced budget, then he said, "Yahoo! I got a surplus" and he went out and increased spending, which Bush then had to deal with.

You may not recall this, but we were in a recession before Bush was able to enact his first budget--yet he was still blamed for it.

W. Bush is also a unique situation due to the terrorist attacks and funding for the wars.  Clinton didn't have anything like that.  His worst problem was trying not to get caught with the intern. ;)

Here's a link to Reaganomics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Right, and thats where they get the defense of marrige act and warrentless wiretapping from- limited powers in government.
Has anyone even looked at the fact that the 'natural' cycles of stock market crashes occur ebcause teh feedback mechanism has too high of a gain (universal cause of control system instability) which can be offset by *raising* capital gains taxes from stock purchases while lowering income taxes on dividends?
No, of course not, because that would break ideology.
Also why is it that if it is always Democrats causing teh recessions it happens after 6 years of Republican rule, but the 'Republican created' recovery hapens in about 3 years of Democratic rule. This even happened after carter, who was only in office for 4 years following a Republican...

Defense of Marriage = Passed under Clinton in 1996 (and all it really says anyway is that, for federal laws, they won't recognize marriage except as between a man and woman.  There wasn't any expansion of power per se.)

Warrantless wiretapping = For national security, not an expansion of governmental powers.


What I am talking about in expanding government powers is where the federal government tries to assert powers over an AREA that it does not normally assert.

For example, historically, family and educational issues have been localized.  However, the federal government has become more involved.  This usually happens by invoking the interstate commerce clause.  Similarly is health care.  This is one of the key challenges to Obamacare--the fact that it is not one of the enumerated powers of federal government.  Even if he eventually slides it by the courts, that is a perfect example of the federal government expanding its AREA of power.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:11, Mon 04 Oct 2010.

Passed under Clinton by a Republican house and Congress durring an election year where they clearly intendd to make an issue out of it if he vetoed it.

Or of course tehre are local politics, like the Arizona law violating the constitutional rights of Americans in it's effort to get at illegal aliens....

BUt hey, I guess it's still keeping to the 'area' of crime if we just criminalize all the behavior we don't like, don't worry about the constitution or any mamby pamby rights...

That's interesting, because I would tend to include under 'increasing government powers' the increase in the scope or reduction in the controls against the use of government power. So warrantless wiretapping is indeed an 'expansion of government power'. I don't see Bush as a classic Republican.

I don't see any of the current Republicans as a classis Republican (looks like we're stuck with New Coke). From where I sit teh last of those disapeared when McCain sold out durring his presidencial bid to the hyper-conservative 'base' he had run against to win the nomination.
Defining moment of that campaign was McCain getting bood off stage by the Republicans at his own rally for saying that Obama was not a muslim or a foreigner but a patriotic American with a difference of opinion.
Now we just have the new Republicans who feel that Obama is the great enemy and people who actually launched attacks against our country are a mere nuisance in comparison (and yes, I have heard Republicans actually say this)

I've heard Democrats say the same thing about Bush (and I've heard Larouche Youth members say it about the both of them)

Indeed. Right now at least, politics seems dominated by the extremes. If only someone started rallying to level-headed moderates.

You mean John Stewarts Rally to Restore Sanity on Oct 30 in Washington on the Wahington Mall?

(Although I prefer Colbert's rally myself.)

Actually, if anyone is going that way, I could do with a ride :( It bothers me to no end that I'm close enough to take the train, but I won't have the car and I will have two kids in tow, and it being the weekend when the commuter trains don't run, I'm having trouble making it.

It's a bit out of the way for me- I live in Kansas. Wish I could go though.
I had a concept for a sign that would work for both rallies- a picture of Glen Beck with the words "Fear the Insanity"
This message was last edited by the player at 13:38, Tue 05 Oct 2010.

I was going to print out a Longcat sign. That sort of sums up my political leanings as of late.

I'm tired of the arguement the Health Care Reform is an expansion of the government into health care. The government can: regulate medicare, interstate insurance, drug companies, employers taxes and medicaid. The free market is being used as it was for decades.

The only issue is can they tax a person for not having insurance since there are no other penalties, and I note many lower to lower middle income people will get subsidized premiums and out of pocket costs. Now that part might get struck down. But that will not affect much of the law going into effect. But the Courts decide such things in the end if they decide the individual mandate is fine its a new precedent.

I'm considering suing if the law defunds the Medicaid expansion to sue the state to get on it based on the superior Federal income requirement in the law if the funding is gone, the income qualification as the higher level standard is still the law. I intend to fight them on that if the law is not touched in that area. If they get stuck using the current formulae to consider funding then fine, they will have to dig up the money.

Where was this?  That's a ballsy statement.  One I agree with besides "mere nuisance"  I'd say radical terrorist are a real threat, but Obama (not just him but his advisors) are the biggest threat to our country.

@AmericanNightmare

It's probably not because they're Republicans so much that they're into some NWO conspiracy theory or another.

In reply to Heath (msg #44):

Heath, I think your partisan glasses are a bit too dark.  You call tax cuts an investment because it puts money in the private sector but dont do the same for stimulus spending; even though it also puts money in theprivate sector.  you look only at the ggod parts of tax breaks; and only at the adparts of stimulus spending.  Not surre if intnetion "framing" of thedebate, pr if you are really so stuck in partisan thinking that you cant look at both fairly.  BOTH are bought on credit, BOTH lead to deficits, BOTH transfew money from govt to private sector.  The main difference is the govt gets something with stimulus spending, sa roads or parks etc.

The main problem, I think, is that of your four pillars, only the fum parts ever get done. its all well and good to cut taxes if it comes with lower spending, but reps only seem to cut taxes, but not do the hard partof reducing spending.  Its all cakes, no veg.  Dems can be bad at this too, spending but not coming up with ways to pay for it.  But Id sa theyre a bit better at paying for there progrmas than reps.  Hence "tax and spend liberals."

The important thing is thattax cuts arent freee (at least npt these dyas.  drops from seventy percent may be).  Cutting taxe without cutting spending is just as much «buying on credit» as is stimulus spending.  Th only wy to think otherwise is not being objective wen looking at the two.

In reply to Heath (msg #44):

Heath, I think your partisan glasses are a bit too dark.  You call tax cuts an investment because it puts money in the private sector but dont do the same for stimulus spending; even though it also puts money in theprivate sector.  you look only at the ggod parts of tax breaks; and only at the adparts of stimulus spending.  Not surre if intnetion "framing" of thedebate, pr if you are really so stuck in partisan thinking that you cant look at both fairly.  BOTH are bought on credit, BOTH lead to deficits, BOTH transfew money from govt to private sector.  The main difference is the govt gets something with stimulus spending, sa roads or parks etc.

The main problem, I think, is that of your four pillars, only the fum parts ever get done. its all well and good to cut taxes if it comes with lower spending, but reps only seem to cut taxes, but not do the hard partof reducing spending.  Its all cakes, no veg.  Dems can be bad at this too, spending but not coming up with ways to pay for it.  But Id sa theyre a bit better at paying for there progrmas than reps.  Hence "tax and spend liberals."

The important thing is thattax cuts arent freee (at least npt these dyas.  drops from seventy percent may be).  Cutting taxe without cutting spending is just as much «buying on credit» as is stimulus spending.  Th only wy to think otherwise is not being objective wen looking at the two.

It was in an off line conversation I had- what they claimed was that they were a nuisance *compared* to Obama, not that they were not a real threat, but apparently in their opinion taking down a couple of buildings full of people paled in comparison to establishing government programs to help them as a threat to our freedom and safety.

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...4/manning/index.html

So much for the land of the free.

You know, I'd sooner live in China than the US. At least China doesn't pretend that it's citizens have rights and freedoms.

I find that funny in the extreme, but then again I had to give up stuff to get here.  And just as something to think on, all the other parts mentioned that are regulated, don’t demand an absolute purchase of the product.  Income requirements for instance are only a necessity if your company is over a certain size and/or you have some many follow employed workers (Barket, 2001).  Other services are something that most people use, so they take them for granted, but are not mandatory.  I don’t have to pay for natural gas, since I don’t use it.  That’s a choice that I am willing to make, but in the case of the health care, I am taxed for using it and fined for not using it.  I know this because I read the entire bill.  If you haven’t I strongly suggest you, because so far the news hasn’t covered half of it.

That was a soldier, subject to military justice, not a citizen. as much as I support Assange in publishing I also don't have any problem with this. He betrayed the trust of his country and his fellow soldiers, and the need for harsh punishments for that within a military environment are pretty clear cut. at the same time the article was extreemly overhyped- *nearly* solitary confinement as a form of torture? I know plenty of people who *voluntarilly* spend less than an hour a day arround other people.

I also don't have any problem with this

Do you have any conception of what solitary confinement is like? For seven months in a row? That's pure torture. Hell, it's murder. That sort of treatment turns people SUICIDAL.

He betrayed the trust of his country and his fellow soldiers, and the need for harsh punishments for that within a military environment are pretty clear cut

No. No they're not. Have you read the American constitution? Note the Eighth Amendment. The ban on Cruel and Unusual punishment?
This message was last edited by the player at 03:23, Thu 16 Dec 2010.

Solitary confinement isn’t cruel and unusual punishment.   And simply being confined can turn People suicidal (e.g. Warner, 2001).  I’ve been through solitary confinement, it’s not that bad. I was in it for six months straight.  I’ve already been to a therapist, because when I got here it was mandatory given my background, and the guy ran a bunch of tests and said I was fine.   So I have to disagree its not cruel or unusual.  The Supreme Court has also ruled it isn’t either See Madison VS U.S, 2000.   If he had done the same thing in plenty of other countries he’d be facing far worse.

A lot of psychologists disagree.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/#1

If he had done the same thing in plenty of other countries he’d be facing far worse.

Ah, of course. Other people are worse, so that justifies anything we do.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:26, Thu 16 Dec 2010.

We are a nation of laws. Those laws bind us, the military, and Mr. Manning. Should Mr. Manning be tried and punished for any crimes he's committed? Yes. And should it be by military law? Yes.

Meanwhile, the military must follow its own laws. If solitary confinement has been outlawed, they shouldn't be storing Mr. Manning in solitary confinement. If law requires he have a trial already, he should probably have his trial already.

So you link to another article selectively quoting one psychologist. Sure that's evidence.
Any information about how long a person has to be in solitary for such symptoms to set in? Or How much contact is required to prevent them? What you have is liek a quote fro someone talking about sleep deprivation causing halucination (which it does after 3 nights of no sleep) and saying that this makes waking someone up early in the morning cruel and unsussal punishment.

It varies, individuals with a high threshold for low sensory stimulation can be placed in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time, where people used to high levels of stimulation  begin to suffer ill affects more quickly (e.g. Marcus, 2001;2002; 2003; Whitefield & lyal, 1998).  It should be noted that ill affects consist of depression, suicidal thoughts, increased aggressiveness, etc.  Hallucinations are not considered by all to be damaging, as many neural psychologists have  suggested based on findings that these are attempts by the brain to self stimulate; these are also more common under sleep deregulation, which can occur in sensory depredating situations, but are not necessitated by it (See Philips, 2008 for a review).

In other words, a person can face sleep deprivation in sensory depriving situations, but this heavily linked to personality attributes, and sensory habituation; as little as three minutes of stimulation, even self-stimulation (i.e. singing, touching, tapping on a wall), have been demonstrated both neurologically and through self-report to keep  undesired symptoms from occurring.  This is true even if the person is heavily sleep deprived (Decker, 2000; Walter, 2007).   Sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation are two of the most heavily studied topics in the realm of neurochemistry and neural cognitive science; I’ve only begun to scratch the service with what is above.

Now, taking a different approach, the documents being referred to where classified.  This means that they were private property of the government (New York VS Carrolton, 1988).  Given this it can be said that the parties involved were handling stolen property, property, all parties new this as some of the documents are marked classified.  It does not matter if some of the information, or speaking hypothetically, if all the documents contained information that existed in other forms.  If the individual is holding information, in whatever form, then they are committing a crime.  This is in addition, to any other issue related to the seriousness of distribution, possible reckless endangerment as a result of distribution, etc, etc.

Not to derail the current conversation (please feel free to carry on with it), but I saw something in a letter to the editor the other day that has been bouncing around in my head and I wanted to see what you guys thought of it.

As you probably know, a judge a ruled against the Health Care law passed earlier this year, and everyone expect it to end up in the supreme court.  The major objection that opponents of the law have is with the mandate to buy insurance.  All this has been shouted about over and over, so nothing new yet.  What got my attention the other day was someone suggesting the that problem with the law was mostly one of branding/marketing (and also of the details of implementation).  Calling it a "mandate" to buy it comes off very differently then giving a tax break for buying it, even though the effects in each case are pretty much exactly the same.  Technically, I think the mandate is actually set up as a tax that you can avoid if you buy insurance, rather than a fine if you don't, but it's been presented the other way around.  The thing that really jumped out at me, though, was someone making the comparison with the income tax deduction for mortgages.  Basically, if you've bought a house and are paying a mortgage, you get a very sizable deduction to your income tax.  In fact, I've been told many times it's only really worthwhile to do itemized deductions if you've got a mortgage (which I can't really verify, because I don't have a mortgage, and thus have never done itemized deductions. Add to that the fact that I'm now living in the UK, and only have to pay US income tax if I make over something like $80 over here because of tax reciprocity between the US and UK, and you get the fact that I'm far from an expert on the mortgage deduction).  Anyway, the question becomes this:  Is the mortgage deduction an effective "mandate" to buy a house?  Has the government overstepped its power by "forcing" me to entering into an agreement with a bank, and buy a home, going so far as to "fine" me if I don't?

It sounds a bit comically, and to a degree, it is, but at the end of the day, many people pay higher taxes because they don't have a mortgage.  Call it a break for those who do have mortgages, or call it a fine on those who don't, the effect is the same either way.  To my knowledge, there isn't a major movement pushing to have the mortgage deduction ruled unconstitutional.  Is the difference between health care and home ownership largely one of how they've described the system?  Would it have been less controversial if Obama and the dems had described it as a "tax break for people with health insurance" from the start, rather than a "mandate" to buy insurance?

There is a difference between the ways the two policies are implemented, which is probably worth pointing out.  The mortgage deduction is applied to income tax, whereas the health care "fine" is a new tax introduced just for this purpose, and not directly related to income.  Had the system been implemented such that you loose $5k of your deductions (or whatever the "fine" is) or something along those lines (well, it'd have to be slightly different because a $5k deduction doesn't lower your taxes by $5k, but hopefully you can see where I'm going with this), would there be less objection to it now?  Those with lower incomes already get assistance in buying insurance in the health care law, so the fact that some people don't pay $5k (or whatever) in taxes presumably wouldn't break the system.

What do people think?  Is there anything to this idea that the failure is mostly one of marketing/branding of the health care law?  Is the mortgage deduction effectively a mandate forcing us to buy homes?

In reply to Tycho (msg #72):

That would be great, the only problem is, and I can say this, because a friend of mine read the entire bill, this individual actually works as a secretary for one of the congressman from Carolina, the wording of the bill doesn’t allow for that.  There really aren’t any specifications for any major tax breaks in it.  There is some miner ones, but nothing worth being overly happy with.  As for what you said about mortgages, it’s true; several of my relatives have them, and have gotten better tax returns when going itemized.  That’s my ten cents worth.

I know (or, at least have been told) that the wording doesn't include a tax break.  But that's sort of the point:  If they had, instead of calling it a "penalty tax" on everyone who doesn't get health care, called it a "tax on everyone and everyone...but with a tax break for people who have insurance" would that have made a difference?  The effect would be exactly the same (i.e., people without insurance would have to pay the government, those with it wouldn't have to), but one is a "mandate," the other is just an "incentive."  Exact same effect, but is one "model" constitutional and the other not?

Oh, well that changes things, technically, yes, first because it violates the Tenth amendment, but most people don’t seem to care about that and the Fed has had a track record of violating that one for decades.  I’m not speaking of any one side in this regard.  Second, yes, because it violates article II, which states that the government shall not force upon any purchases.  In this case, you will tax people for not purchasing it, punishing them, and rewarding people that do.   You see it’s not a complete tax, since those that have it don’t have to pay the tax.   The difference in a mortgage is that you get a return on it at the end of the year, but you’ve still had to pay on it during the year, and the return doesn’t completely equal what you’ve paid. So, you are still paying money to the Fed, even if you have a mortgage, it’s just less, because you are paying somebody else, who gets taxed for the mortgage.  So, from a Federal standpoint the same amount of money is coming in. those this idea was proposed once before back in the eighties, I’ll try and dig up sources later, and a few economists pointed out a few problems with it, but I can’t remember what those were at the moment.  I should mention that if the bill was declared by the courts to be constitutional, then it would be at the very least something better than what is being proposed now.  The sad thing, is the there have been a number of reports on how most of the problems with the current insurance system could be fixed, without introducing a new system (e.g. Barber, et, Al. 2008).

I would agree though that yes, taking it off federal income taxes as a deduction makes more sense than adding it just as a 'health care tax'. I say this in part because people who have no money to be taxed (such as college students) will suffer more under the latter than the former, and that doesn't make sense.

Just have to vent...

Congress has 13 bills they have to pass every year to fund normal government funding. Every year, same thing. It's basically the only repeating duty that Congress is obligated to perform.

This year they failed to submit all but one until AFTER they were already due (10/1). The final document is a foot tall, including $10b in earmarks, and a whole lot of contentious line items, like Guatanamo Bay, the health care bill, and funding for Iraq. Because of this (warning, surprise ahead), some people didn't like the bill and refuse to sign it.

So after a full year of not doing their jobs, now almost the entire federal government is looking at a period of unpaid furlough, for an unknown period of time. Sure, they're likely to be paid back retroactively, but even so, we're talking about putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for an indefinite period, because Congress didn't bother doing the one job they're actually paid to do.

And this isn't the first time it's happened either. I can remember at least two other times in the past four years that this sort of thing came up.

Say what you want about Obama, at least he actually turns up for work every day.

In reply to Tycho (msg #72):

First on the mandate to buy that is very likely unconstitutional that does not affect the rest of the law. The government can tax businesses, regulate interstate markets (insurance, drug companies etc.) and have the primary standing for Medicaid regulations as the Federal authority of the volunatary program. And how it was passed is not in the constitution they can decide internal mechanics of the two houses as they wish if both consent. It was just a new approach to the passing of a law.

Second if the mandate is axed and I see that likely the government has other weapons. They could say ok states you mandate the law with penalties that hurt to not be insured or we cut off all discretionary Federal dollars and cut off money for current project not demanded in the constitution - the state could then opt not to. Or they could pass regulations to say if you don't get insurance and can withing fair guidelines transitional breaks or the like it will cost MORE to get later say add 1% each month to premiums when you do decide to get into the system while blocking current medical problems from being covered for six months of a non-routine nature (diabetes fine, cancer your out of luck) and negate charity care laws for these persons. If they end up say 36 months and then decide to get it premiums will be 36% higher for you that to go into the system. And other measure like that that are allowed in the discretionary points of the law.

I just don't see with all the interests that now benefit from the law like hospitals which want this to balance their budgets and make it easier to handle a stable financial base. Right now in Florida if your poor enough and the bar is modest the hospital can't bill you at all the hit is not good if the care is costly. And most other providers don't bother billing either at that point. That is passed into the system. The money is going to matter when they use the lobbiests to keep the law and noone can seny that here.

For me there is another pair consideration the entire system is so broken and biased against the consumer that its necessary to do this, that ability to protect and secure a market for fairness is also legitimate. They can break up monopolies for less than this industry. I also do see this as a jobs bill if each dollar in economic impact is five times per dollar Florida for example could see over the first ten years $150 billion of economic stimulation in the health care industry and related areas of reform (IT jobs, education) and in the ripple effect across the state.

All in all the bill is not going anywhere far at most the mandate goes away and they will need to find other ways to get people into the system, and its good for my state in jobs and a healthier more productive workforce among the lower income people.

And all that would be great, if the bill was actually going to do those things, but it doesn’t look like it will.  Section III, sub article for is going to deny hospitals funds, as only approved finances are going to be given to a hospital, on the bases of regional population, not regional use.  This means that a hospital that see’s more patients, but is in a small population zone won’t receive the funding that it necessity would mandate.  This is the major one there, there several smaller others, such as rationing of the number of specialists allowed at any given hospital.  Article IV, of the second section is great, as it then puts a decreased cap on the amount of money nurses could receive, without changing their hours, bet you didn’t know that was there did you?  I’m still reading through, got in brail in today’s mail.  I’m still reading through it, and it looks like it’s one full of stuff that doesn’t belong and two rather quickly thrown together.  I mean the Henderson bill that was debated during the Carter administration didn’t feel this rushed, but I digress.  Oh, as far as business and interstate regulation is concerned, the Federal government has rules that they have to follow (See Himerton, and Smith, 2004 for a review).  It can be kind of tricky to understand, as there are a lot of loop wholes in it, but essentially, the Federal government isn’t supposed to make demands on the entire health care system of any state, or hamper their abilities in regards to conducting basic civil processes in relation to such an affair.  This is in part the basis for the reason why it’s going before the Supreme Court; it is however, interestingly enough something that the TV news channels aren’t mentioning.  I heard it in the associated press, as well as in the Washington Post.  In short, the issue is going to have to go before the Supreme Court either way.  If they had a better bill, I think that there wouldn’t be as much fuss about it, just my opinion there, but there are points, where the bill is clearly lacking.  For instance, as far as it stands, I can’t find anything regarding to monitoring of the Feds end of the regulation part, which is supposed to be there, but it could be located elsewhere.  I’ll let you know when I find it.

I think under the current system, people with income below a certain level get subsidies for health care (don't recall at the moment just how that works, but I do remember it being considered a key part of the bill).

But to bring things back to the original question (to be honest, I had enough debate about the merits and flaws of the bill itself back when they were trying to get it past), what do people think about the mortgage deduction?  Is it a "mandate" to buy a home?  Is the government telling me that if I don't enter into a private agreement with a bank, then I should be "fined" as a penalty (through a higher income tax).  Is it an overstepping of government power to try to "make" me buy instead of rent?

I know it's a bit cheeky to put it that way, and I'm guessing most people won't actually see it as a problem, but to a degree that's the point.  The government already has systems in place where if you have to pay more taxes if you don't do X, Y, or Z.  Is the healthcare version all that different?  Is it just because it's been described differently that some people see it as such an overstepping?

I would say that, in general, if I have to pay something anyway (like taxes), and you say 'you don't have to pay as much taxes if you buy this', I don't see it as really mandating buying that. I would be paying taxes anyway. I've accepted that, it's part of life. If I didn't get a house, it's not like I could say 'I wouldn't be paying these darn taxes if it weren't for those pesky lawmakers!'  I almost certainly would, one way or another.

However, if the lawmakers actually make and enforce a law that serves me a fine because I didn't (or did) do X, I would say that's a requirement. If I get a speeding ticket, they are requiring me not to speed. It's not like I was going to pay $200 anyway to the city, and I just get a discount for not speeding. No, it's a specific penalty that is not otherwise required. I can certainly say 'if it weren't for that pesky cop, I wouldn't be paying this $200', because it's true. This is despite the fact that my city uses speeding tickets to shore up its budget deficit - so yes, if no one sped, they WOULD increase my taxes, and I'd be paying it one way or another.

I will pay my fair share. But don't make me pay extra when I fail to meet yet another law.

And yes, a lot of that is psychology. The emotional penalty for getting something taken away or being punished is heavier than the emotional bonus from something added. It's human nature. Unless Obama is actually an android (I've had my suspicions), he should have realized that 'fining people for not supporting this idea' will piss people off while 'giving people a tax break for supporting my idea' is, at minimum, a little less insulting.

there are a few points that I want to bring up, because there is more to this bill then just the part about buying insurance.  If it were just hay if you don’t buy health insurance, then you are going to be taxed more heavily then if you don’t, then the fuss wouldn’t be there, or at least there wouldn’t be as big of a fuss.  Here we have something that Congress is famous for, I’m not pointing at any one party, because certain members of both parties have been guilty of this, there are pages and pages and pages, of stuff here that goes into hospital regulation, mandates for doctors, etc, etc.  I had to stop reading because my fingers got tired.  That probably sounds a little weard if you’ve never felt brail.  That’s when you wade through it, I think the real problem.  As an aside I think we should put a limit on the Number of years someone can serve in Congress, what do the rest of you think?

Oh, thanks for pointing out the error.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:06, Sat 18 Dec 2010.

I think your post get cut off in the middle, Apoplexies.

Katisara, it's sounding a bit like you're saying that to a degree, describing the situation differently would have made a significant difference?  That calling it a "tax break for those who buy insurance" rather than "a tax on people who don't" might have avoided some of the anger aimed at the law?   Do you think it's too late to "re-brand" so to speak?  Could people change their mind about the law if the dems just start describing it differently?

They could have done so earlier in the bill’s history, but it’s probably too late now.  It’s already gone to the point of becoming a catch phrase.  I mean most people have had it stuck in their minds that this bill is bad, even if they don’t really know, or understand what it’s about.  Even if one side tries to re-package it, their political opponents, and there have been Democrats that have apposed this bill as well, will immediately point out that they are just trying to push the same bill in through different language.  In short, business will continue as usual.

In reply to katisara (msg #77):

Yeah, the trouble is that democracies end up with the types of government they deserve.  Suckers like us keep voting for the people who point at the other side and yell "Evil!" rather than for people who say "I'll work with the other guys to get the hard stuff done."  Americans always say they want bi-partisanship, but then always vote for the most partisan candidate they can find, it seems.  A number of the republican who got elected in the most recent election stated openly that they wanted to shut the government down.  The republicans more or less purged moderates from their party the last few years, and I just read an article saying that the democrats seem to be doing the same in the other direction.  sigh.

The politicians will get better when we voters stop rewarding them for acting like children.

More signifigantly than that most Americans don't even know the policies of teh group they are voting for. Do you think Republicans could have won back in November with a proclamation of "We're going to stick it to first responders to save teh tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% of Americans?" Obviously they believe in their policies enough to make teh dramatic statements after the election and stick to what they are saying, but they also know enough not to campaign on the truth.
And unfortunately nobody is pointing out what teh truth is, except for more political hacks from teh other side who bend and distort what they are reporting, so that an 'expose' on Acorn is filled with 'evidence' that is ultimately inadmissable in court and gets the people who shot the video sentanced to jail, but it makes the president look like he's mafia so it makes it up on Fox News.

Actually that was pretty much the rallying cry of Democrats in my state, it didn’t work.  And if you look it from a purely tax perspective, (see Richards and Stine, 2008; GOA, 2009), the wealthy already pay more here then anywhere else.  Sometimes I wonder why more of them don’t apply for citizenship elsewhere.

Can you give a bit more info on that Richards and Stine reference, Apoplexies?  I'm pretty sure the income top tax rates in much of europe are higher than in the US.

And when you say "that was pretty much the rallying cry of Democrats in my state," which message are you referring to?  Wasn't quite sure which part of which message you meant, so wasn't entirely sure what you were saying the rallying cry was.

Probably because they pay even more elsewhere.
Personally I think taxes should be linearized and incorporate welfare into the equation. Something along the lines of:

tax debt=(total income-50000)*.4
at least to start with. If this does what past conservative economic data has indicated in the past and move us towards where the average income is $250,000 per person then we can start sliding the numbers toward (total income-80,000)*.25 so long as it continues to pay the cost of running the government (which would hypothetically generate an average income of $1.6M)

But my point was that the parties depend on ignorance rather than making the case for their policies.

Which also leads to a lot of hate speach and finger poointing because having an anemy to defeat motivates people to vote.

Which brings out the baser nature of politicians and turns them into the monsters we need to vote against.

If we're thinking about tax reform, remember to check out the Tycho's hairbrained schemes thread. :)

Sorry, another post came up while I was replying to silveroak.  As for the article it’s

Richards, A. and Stine, D. (2008).  Who is taxed in America, Journal of Business Economics. Vol. 105, 1004-1012.

And yes some Europeans have higher income taxes, but there are several specific taxes that people over a certain earning per job have to deal with; increased property taxes in all of the states for them; etc, etc.  It’s not just Federal taxes that they have to wrry about it’s state taxes as well, and if they own, or heavily involved in a business, look out.  We are rapidly becoming the nation with the highest business tax in the world and people wonder why foregn business don’t want to come here.  People think it’s expensive labor, but that’s not it at all.  If they lowered the business tax, our economy would be better off.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:08, Sat 18 Dec 2010.

Ah, gotcha.  It's not so much "we tax the wealthy more than other countries," but "we tax businesses more than other countries."  That seems entirely possible to me.  Does the paper take into account VATs in other countries as well?

Not sure, I’d have to go back and relisten.  The article looked at wealthy individuals and businesses.  I do have in my notes, that those wealthy individuals that are associated with businesses pay more then they would else where.  For instance, Bill Gates could pay twenty percent less taxes if he lived in any European country and fifteen percent less if he was living in Canada.  This still taking into consideration that is still a U.S. citizen and still owns business in America.  I have to make notes, as these articles come to me through the library of Congress, and I have to eventually send them back. I’m not quite finished with this one, so haven’t sent it back yet.  Oh, in case they didn’t use the acronym, refresh my memory for what VaTs is.  Right now the surgical technique is the only thing that seems to going through my mind.

VAT is value added tax.  It's sort of like a sales tax, and I think most european countries have them.  The VAT here in the UK is going to be 20% in the new year, so that's a pretty hefty tax that rich folks in the US aren't paying.

The figures give for Bill Gates are very difficult for me to believe.  First of all, Bill Gates isn't a business, so the corporate tax rates don't matter to how much tax he pays (it does matter to what microsoft pays, but that won't change if Bill moves anywhere, only if microsoft does).  He pays income tax (which is lower for him in the US than in most western countries), and capital gains tax, which I think is 15%.  There are some places with no capital gains taxes (though in such places you usually have to include capital gains as part of your income and pay taxes on that), but most western nations have it, and at higher rates.

Also, as a US citizen, Bill has to pay tax on his income no matter where he lives.  There is tax reciprocity with many countries, but usually only up to a certain amount (I think here in the UK it's $80k), so he'd be paying double taxes on anything above that.

Property taxes might be hitting Bill pretty hard, but I'm guessing that's not Bill's main tax burden.

He's not paying VAT on the stuff he buys, and is paying a comparatively low tax on the fuel he uses.

Overall, I'm just now seeing how he could save all that much in taxes by moving to another country.  Like I said, Microsoft may be able to save on taxes by moving overseas, but that's not the same as Bill Gates saving money by moving overseas.

All right, I’ve relistened to everything and will attempt to reiterate things as clearly as possible.  The article was essentially a study determining two things, one if wealthy individuals were taxed more here then elsewhere and if organizations were taxed more here then elsewhere.  They two researchers were attempting to determine if in general Americas form of taxation was a hindrance to commerce and partially responsible for the economic problems that we are currently facing.  Note, that I will not type up the full outcome of the structural Equation Model that they ran, because I find it annoying enough when I have to do it for my adviser.  I shall hit the highlights.

An attempt was made to consult the General Accounting Offices of several major nations, as well as a through consulting of tax laws were consulted for each nation selected.  These nations included: the U.S. Canada, Australia, China, South Korea, Japan, and the nations comprising the European Union, both individually and together.  There are some new alterations in regards to inter country commerse that weren’t always in place in Europe, even after the formation of the EU.  The results may or may not surprise you.

Within the United states those wealthy Americans connected with business actions (i.e. owners, major shareholders, heads of large companies, etc), are taxed more heavily than entertainers (i.e. sport figures, film stars, etc.), even when income was found to be equivalent.  While these people paid the same in income tax, those in business settings are required to pay additional taxes beyond that required for individuals engaged in business settings.  Shareholder taxes, interstate income tax, etc.  Many of these forms of taxation do not exist in Europe or Canada (see the amounts Bill gates would save elsewhere in a previous post).   This then leads us to the level of taxation on business themselves, which naturally is significantly more than that of any individual.

  In regards to international business, or thos businesses whose HQ is not within the united States, only Japan is higher on taxation, but the level of difference here is relatively small, only .353 with regards to the F value.  The level of internal taxation however, within the United States currently exceeds that of any other nation surveyed.  The order of difference while still being moderate with regards to the Asian markets was on the cusp of being in the large category with regards to Canada, Europe, and Australia; with the difference between U.S. and Australia being the greatest.

While the others raised some questions as to why entertainers should be allowed to dodge the taxation bullet as much as they did, their greatest concerns were in regards to business taxation.  The authors believe that the form of taxation that both the Federal and states are engaging in is a significant force in why America is hurting as much as it is.  It is to me something worth considering, although I am willing to believe that other factors played a significant role.  Hopefully, this is clear, although, I’m not always the best at conveying information.  I have also tried to space this out and employ colored texts to make this a little easier to follow.

Sorry man, I'm still not seeing it.  It's still sounding like you're equating corporate taxes with taxes that individuals pay.  You can say that those "associated with business" pay more than actors or sports stars, but you haven't told me why.  Income tax is income tax, so they'd both pay the same tax on their income.  Capital gains taxes are lower than the top tax rate (15% capital gains to something like 35% for income, if I recall correctly), so if someone made all their money off stocks and investments, they'd pay less tax than if they just got paid a very big salary.  Capital gains taxes and income taxes do exist in all the countries you mention (I think, not sure about all the EU states individually, or the former soviet states), and I think most if not all of them have higher rates for both.

Are you saying the state income taxes push the total tax burden over what they would pay if they lived elsewhere?  The highest state income tax I know of is MA, which is 5.3%.  There may well be a top rate higher than that somewhere in the US, but I'd be surprised if it were significantly more.  So even with Federal and State income tax combined, the top rate is usually under 40%, which is less than most EU states.

I understand what you're saying the result in the paper, I'm just not seeing how they're reaching that result.  It could well be the case, but it just doesn't seem to add up to me.  Again, business may be taxed more in the US than in other countries, but that's not the same as wealthy people being taxed more.  It seems particularly hard to believe when you're saying it's higher than all the countries in the EU.  The lowest income tax bracket in Denmark is higher than the highest tax rate in the US (35% top rate in US, 36.5% lowest rate in denmark--goes up to 51%), and denmark has a 25% VAT.  Sweeden's top rate is nearly 60%, with a 25% VAT, and a 31% payroll tax.  Without being pointed to some huge tax that I'm missing, I just don't see how rich people in the US are paying more taxes than people with the same income in Sweeden, Denmark, or similar countries.

Again, it sounds like either you or the authors are confusing the taxes that corporations pay with those that individuals pay, when they're actually two separate issues.  To my knowledge, there's no tax on individuals for "being associated with a business."  The business might have to pay a tax, but that's different from the individual having to pay a tax.

Let me do some checking and get back to you on this one.  Not sure where the error is.

The short answer is that it's complicated. For example most states have different income taxes based on whether you are a resident of the state or not, which depending on the state can mean actually living there or whether you derive most of your income from there. So for example Bill Gates lives in Washington state, and pays income tax there based on return from his investments (microsoft) and at least used to also pay them from his sallary (again Microsoft) which he could have done from say Oregan or Vancouver (Canada) if he had moved to Oregan he would have lower state taxes on his investement income from his investments in Washington, but would also have to pay income tax on his investment income from Microsoft in Oregon. If he lived in Vancouver he would have to deal with Canadian taxes, and have the lower tax rate in Washington.
Additionally there are laws in effect which tax income earned abroad (including money earned by Microsoft) which only actually gets attached when the money comes back into the US. So if you make $1M in France where it gets taxed in Farnce you can bring it back to the US for reinvestment and get it taxed again or you can reinvest it in France, or elsewhere in the EU with no additional tax penalty. The US tax code is frankly a mess and individual income tax is the least part of it.
Also it should be noted that depending on the type of company generally corporate income gets taxed 3 times- sales tax, tax on earnings, and tax on distribution to investors. However if the investors live abroad the rules on that may be different...

They are, but they are a bit complicated.  I only know that because as a mediator I need to know it.  Correction, I need to have a working understanding of it, complete knowledge is near impossible.   That’s meant to be a joke, and well some laws are about to change anyway, like how much can be taxed by international funds, and the statue of limitations on defaulted credit cards.   Now you know what I do for a living.  I’m however, not a lawyer, even though most people expect me to be one.  As near as I can tell there are two separate studies, one related to business, and one related to the wealthy.  This I am certain of.  I am certain that the findings on U.S. having extremely high business taxes, because several other reports published previously have said this.  Some of those studies were published in the United States, some were not.  As for the first study on the wealthy, I am going to scrap it, because there procedure is so small that I couldn’t replicate this study if I tried and it’s something that the peer reviewers should have pointed out; they didn’t.  Now, with several hours listening to tables and charts out of the way, I’m on to do something different.

Ah, okay.  I can accept the argument that business face high taxes in the US.

In reply to Apoplexies (msg #79):

I think on the Health Care Law thereis one thing noone considered with the number of states fighting this on the medicaid impact costwise, the states just refusing to do anything to support this. They could just tell the Federal Government to take a long walk on a short pier and tell them to try and make them expand services to the poor. In 2014 they can likely see a Republican stronger entrenched Congress that would not move to penalize them and a court order only works if there is enforcement powers and they alone can't do that. Or they might opt out leaving the Elderly and sickest citizens in a state program and pass off everyone else onto the Federal program of subsidized regular insurance.

I did the math for myself I earned last year around $10,000 so my ANNUAL premiums for a $1000/month policy would be $200 and my out-of-pocket costs capped at 6% of the bills under the laws best subsidies [2% of income/94% out-of-pocket covered by the government]. As a Busker ,sidewalk performer and proud, I work another twenty or so hours a year I paid for my Health Care premium. The rest they would get on ability-to-pay small bill I'd pay and anything huge they would likely write off since they are getting MOST of their money from the 94% the government is required to pay. I could handle that I don't need Medicaid. So could many people below the 133% of the poverty line. So why should states not consider this even for poor pregnant women and children as an option to try? Medicaid is voluntary they could opt out and its legal.

My only problem on my income and noting I'm disabled and do the folk music performing to support myself in a very modest way doesn't allow me basic medical care for my diabetes and other related problems so I'll take Medicaid. I'd PREFER to work a bit harder and pay for the insurances under the subsidized rates though. Frankly I would rather see as in most nations taxes pay for this from payroll or other sources, pooled together and see everyone gets access to a plan using the freemarket with government oversight for the poor falling through the cracks with medical issues.

In reply to RubySlippers (msg #101):

I’m afraid I’m not entirely sure what you’re replying to and so I’ll respond the best I can.  I personally don’t have a problem with the insurance part of the bill, which is only about ninety pages long, give or take.  I think the two major problems with the bill are one that it goes against another law that dictates that the government will not attempt to manipulate the entire action of any one state’s medical services.  Congress never dealt with that law first off all.  Second, Texas and Georgia have been in discussion to keep parts of it, I don’t recall what parts, but the whole dammed system is like a bunch of children fussing over who gets the ball.  At this point, to me, it looks like the Court is going to have to step in, making a ruling, and the bill will have to go back for revisions.  Your idea sounds like a good one to me.  As somebody with a disability as well and having to purchase expensive medication, it would help me out some.

Rubyslippers, I'm not sure I follow what you're suggesting.  It sort of sounds like you're saying the states should just ignore the law, stop paying for medicare, and telling their citizens to go ask the federal government for insurance?

It sounds like you feel like someone should be subsidizing your insurance, but it's not clear to me who you think it should be.  Can you clarify it a bit for me?

No the states have no penalty in the law for non-compliance, in 2013 the Congress and Presidency could very well move Republican enough to make a law forcing compliance (cutting Federal funding the normal means) and no court can force an action without someone backing them up. If a group of states decided to tell the Feds to go to hell what exactly could they do?

And the costs under the new law if low income in the Medicaid window is low, I noted my numbers and I just need to Busk more to pay for care. If the bill is huge medical providers like now would write it off they are going to get 94% of their money at the most generous subsidy.

So my idea is for states to cover the elderly as they do now under Medicaid/Medicare shared programs in a new state level program, drop out of Medicaid and just tell those on it to get the insurance under the Fed program. The cost would be 2% of the premium rate for a %1000 a month policy under SSI in Florida $13.80 a month. Out-of-pocket costs would be convered 94% under the law I can't see medical providers going out of their way to get the patiants share. And the state could mandate they not go after a patiant on Medicaid or under 150% of the poverty line for the patiants share IF the insurance is there. The Feds would then have the ball in their court as to what to do but this would provide the option and I for one see it as legitimate.

If the patiant still needs help paying premiums charities and local counties could do that, they do now for unpaid care they just need to shift that money in the case of counties. And even the homeless could get care in the program what is 2% of a poor homeless persons income? $0, a few dollars a month at most?

And I will note this would be legal the Medicaid system is optional, the states don't have to be in it. But they need a sensible option if they replace it, the Feds just offered it and I'm pointing it out here.

And the law pays for the subsidy for low income out of taxes, I pay taxes as do you so its legitimate. Its in the law I'm not making this up if your single earning just over the 133% of the poverty line and under $43,000 (and change) your subsidizing peoples insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. I'm just saying add all the rest from $0 to 14,404 of income not in Medicaid but in regular insurance like the rest get. Just because the Congress didn't PLAN for this they would have to regulate them in most likely or look like crap, so might the states but if they are going to get crippled by the costs they have a sound case. - We provided for the elderly, made these laws to protect poor patiants we just are dropping Medicaid for the better care the people will get under regular insurance and even the poor should be expected to pay something - medical providers also get to make more stable income. -

And the government can tax and move money around anyway they want this is perfectly Constitutional to do.

I'm apologize if I'm being slow, but I'm still struggling to understand this plan.  Are you saying the states opt out of medicaid, because low-income people will be subsidized under the new health care plan?  And then on top of that, the people should just not pay the fee involved with that, and say "whatcha gonna do 'bout it, government?"

My initial thoughts are:
a)  legal or not, is it ethical?
b)  if the states opt out of medicaid, and pass the bill onto the federal government, won't the government say "fine, but you're on your own for medicare now too," which is a bigger bill anyway, if I recall correctly (which I might not in this case)?  Would it end up being penny-wise, pound foolish in the end?
c)  If this is just pushing the states bill onto the federal government, it seems like it should be (which isn't the same as 'will be') hard to get the republicans on board.  They're pushing the "reduce the debt, solve things at the state level, big government is bad!" line pretty hard these days.  Turning around and just shoving all the problems on the federal government wouldn't seem to fit too well into the ideology they've been pushing.  Not that they couldn't try to spin it (maybe as a "starve the beast" thing), it seems like a bit of a hard sell to me.
d)  in the end, what does it really benefit anyone?  In the end, someone has to pay for the health care you want for pennies.  Is making people all over the country pay for your meds really all the different from making people all over your state pay for them?

Again, I've probably misunderstood exactly what you're proposing, so all of those points might not be valid, but they're what came to mind as I was trying to figure it out.

No, they can’t.  There is a document called the Federal Taxation Guidelines, which came out originally in the 1950s, which details exactly what Congress can and cannot do in regards to taxation and the handling of funds.  The government has had a pretty good track record of following this document.  And as I have already said, this bill is in violation of a previous standing law.  You cannot just make a new law without providing provisions for the old law that the new one countermands.  That’s a problem folks, whether you like the bill or not.  Oh, if the states simply said they wouldn’t take the bill Congress can stop all Federal founding, a club they’ve already threatened some states with since this began.  Given that many states are having financial troubles of their own, it’s a pretty serious threat.

Reviving this topic to discuss the political implications of the Giffords shooting:

Though his rhetoric is aimed at conservatives I think this man has said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw

No one can be exempted, a culture of violence breeds violence, and all must be mindful of what is said. The same way we do not condone the use of certain foul words and racial epithets in public discourse we should all condemn those who advocate violence against our own people. To do otherwise is to however tacitly state that this man, crazy or sane, was right to do as he did and should be lauded for it.

Not blaming the actions of a schizo on political rhetoric and requesting speech restrictions is not condoning these horrid actions.  Your words play to the politicization of this tragedy.

He went to a political function, shot a polician, ranted about politics, and may have had an accomplice. How is this not about politics? It's not like when Reagan was shot by a man simply seeking fame. The man may have been unhinged, but it was in a very political manner, and was well fed by partisan rhetoric.

Of course the real test would be if some of the victims famillys sued Fox News for wrongfull death.

It is the whole "shooting" aspect that sets this apart.  Tell me silveroak, what was the political viewpoint held by the nine-year old girl that made her a target?  This was a violent outburst and not a targetted assassination.

The man was unhinged as you say but having a political viewpoint is human.  Attributing a shooting spree to merely his political views is reducing the tragedy to the talking points you favor.  Which you then prove by talk of suing Fox News.  You are an excellent example of the coming calls for some kind of limiting, mostly conservative rhetoric, by people who would limit political speech they do not agree with.  Good job.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:11, Sun 09 Jan 2011.

Do you actually read the news or just listen to Fox defend itself?
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...g-news_n_806397.html



The fact that non-political collateral damage occured does feed the outrage but it does not mean that his motivations were not political in nature. In fact from *every* report it is clear that Giffords was the primary target.

also please explain to me how a single deranged madman with a Glock 19 managed to shoot 19 people before reloading? The glock magazine only holds 15 bullets.

The fact that you use HuffPo as a source is either really funny or really sad.  I am going to go with the latter.  Good thing you stuck to unbiased sources of news unlike those people who go to Fox!  I have not seen Fox "defend itself" as I don't believe they believe they need to.  Why do you think they do?

If you actually looked at the myriad of contradictory views this tool held you will see a mind that couldn't hold a coherent thought.  If you and your HuffPo friends see a link to Fox News that is a major leap and not at all logical.



Okay.  So you discount the many reports of his unbalanced nature?  He may have thought that shooting up the place was a political statement, and you seem to agree with this, but normal people do not see putting a bullet in the head of a politician as a valid means of making a political statement.

What seems to be fine in many people's opinions is using this tragedy to present some truly disgusting displays of political opportunism.



Bullets can exit the body and wound others.  If he shot into groups of people that was probably the case.

At least not anymore, and not in this country. I personally would like to keep it that way, how about you?

I am not sure your point is clear to me.  Are you saying that:

a) Normal people DO see putting a bullet in the head of a politician as a valid political statement and that you WOULD like to keep it that way?

Or

b) Normal people DO NOT see utting a bullet in the head of a politician as a valid political statement and that you WOULD like to keep it that way?

I did not want to respond before I gained some clarity.

Surely this is something we should all be able to agree on.  It's not a political, left-right issue.  Shooting people because you disagree with them is wrong.  Full stop.  We can all agree to that, I would like to think.  All this blame of the left or the right or any other group can be put to bed if everyone just says "yes, this guy was wrong to do what he does.  I reject it fully, and condemn the action in no uncertain terms."  AND then not tack on the usual "and it's those other guys fault over there!" that everyone seems to always add to make it into something more.

Once we everyone agrees to that, and we can all see that no one thinks this person was an accepted member of "the other side" we can move on to what, if any, action needs to be taken to prevent future similar attacks.  But first lets do the easy thing, and all agree, without caveat or extra jibes at political rivals, that this guy was unhinged and wrong to do as he did.

In reply to Tycho (msg #115):

Can only agree Tycho.

1) I agree that shooting someone is not a *valid* political statement.
2) I do believe that it was the shooter's *clear* motive to have a political impact.
3) aside from his list of favorite books (which does not mean he agrees with all of them), his rantings are consistantly consistant with right wing principles.
4) since 1990 *all* political lunatics within the US to engage in violent political actions have been of the right wing variety.
5) The rhetoric from the right, especially from the tea party and Fox News, has become increasingly violent in it's imagery.
6) Nobody has made a call for censorship, this is a right-of-center response to people pointing out that those engaging in vitriolic diatribe of a political nature may have some responsibility for point 4, and may increase teh incidence of violence by appearing (to at least some disturbed portion of the population) to be endorsing violent activity.
7) a suggestion of wrongfull death is not a criminal suit, but a civil suit which would result in a fine against Fox News if the courts decided they had any legal liability. If you trully believe they are blameless then you should welcome such a suit since with a standard of evidence based on the preponderance of evidence if they are not fined it would strongly validate their claim of non-responsibility.

>If you believe they are blameless

I should support frivolous lawsuits?

I for one do not believe it is frivolous.
Wrongfull death is defined as

now basing it on a malicious act of slander would admittedly be making case history, but that does not inherantly make it frivolous.

What silver oak said.

Thought I'd replied to this...

But if the position is taken that Fox is not wrong, cannot have performed an illegal act, then any case against them is pointless and a waste of time and energy... frivolous.

And so cases should only go to court if you agree with them? Fox news is certainly not seen as blameless at this point. If they end up in court they are able to defend themselves definitively, as opposed to simply trying to rally the troops of their already followers with more of the same. If I were suspected of murder, or any other crime, then I would rather face my accuser in court than be ambushed in the papers. Of course I can understand why Fox might not feel the same way, being more in the role of the ambusher and facing the possibility the case might go against them.

Okay.



Really?  What do you base that on?  His aggravation at the gold standard no longer being used or his obsession with mind control?  Clearly those two topics are now at the forefront of our political debate considering Giffords clear support of printing money and mind control.



Yes. Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto are the touchstone of right wing principles.  Good one.



Wrong.  Joseph Stack was a registered Democrat.  John Patrick Bedell was a registered Democrat.  One flew a plane into an IRS building and the other tried to shoot up the Pentagon.  So please drop that particular talking point as it holds no water.



Wow, do you even research any of this before posting?  I could take you through the hate-filled Bush years but here is the DailyKos scrubbing their website of anti-Gifford rhetoric two days before the shooting:

http://yesbuthowever.com/daily...0210/comment-page-1/

And here is where the DailyKos put a target on Giffords in 2008 for being a Blue Dog:

http://proof-proofpositive.blo...incite-shooting.html

Not to mention the rhetoric and imagery from the Olbermann's and Schultz's on MSNBC but you wouldn't know that because you are focused on blaming people who are not to blame but just have a different view than you.



Then you should have been watching the news this Sunday morning.  Several people were talking about standards and penalties for violent rhetoric.  What does that sound like to you?  I am sure that violent rhetoric would be Fox News and HuffPo and the sweet sounds of truth would be MSNBC and the DailKos.



Why would I welcome a suit that accomplishes nothing and is based on a false premise?  Is that what the courts are there for in your mind?  What a joke.  It would serve no one, especially the ones truly affected by this tragedy, and only serve to fill the pockets of lawyers.

I know you are now all in on this argument but the lunatic's writings in no way show he was a slave to the voices coming from Fox News or anyone else.  He was just a severely demented individual.

In reply to silveroak (msg #122):

Okay silveroak, let's add Obama to that lawsuit:

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans." - Philadelphia, June 13th, 2008

Sounds like the man wants to kill Republicans to me.  Or Blue Dogs.  Who can say how people will take that kind of talk?  Clearly he should be blamed.  If a court finds him not guilty then all sort of talk of killin' and shootin' should be fine in your eyes.

Seriously?
So you can dig up a web site that shows an incidence of violent left wing rhetoric. It is on Fox new Daily, which, in case you hadn't noticed, is a broadcast channel, not some webb page you have to have the link to even find the example of.
And you really go entirely based on party of registration? Becasue 'destroy the IRS' has been a pretty consistantly right wing mantra for teh past 4 decades, but hey why judge a man by hat he was giving his life for compared to what piece of paper he signed 12 years earlier, right?

the idea that if you can dig up an obscure reference of someone on the left doing something it justifies any excess of teh same thing on teh right is simply absurd. "Well teh wethermen bombed building back in teh 1960s and they were liberal so it's okay if we blow up all the planned parenthoods"- not that anyone is saying that specifically but it is simply an extreem variation on the same concept- that any singular example by anyone you can vaguely associate with "the left" justifies massive overesponse in kind. That is the kind of extreemism of position which people are talking about.

In reply to silveroak (msg #125):

Absolutely serious.

"Destroy the IRS" is not a right-wing mantra.  Small government, spending within the means of the government and fair tax laws have been the mantra of the right-wing.  Bushitler, kill Cheney, and destroy the right-wing Taliban has been the mantra of the left and it was played out on a regular basis on ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, and CNN for years.

I am not the one blaming a news channel or some idiot's website for this tragedy.  You are.  Don't lose sight of the fact that you are the one who believes this unbalanced piece of sh*t is the product of Fox News.  You have selectively used this tragedy to push your personal bias.  I am only showing you the disgusting stupidity of trying to do so.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:29, Mon 10 Jan 2011.

WRONG! I do too, and so do a lot of other people, as evidenced by the very news channels you just quoted's coverage of the event.

FOX has crossed a line.

Post edited by GM for content in violation of forum's constitution.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:54, Tue 11 Jan 2011.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg #127):

The fact that you are on silveroak's side is definitely no proof of validity.  I am sure he is wishing he had better allies.  What is really funny is that you believe the other channel's hatred of Fox News, the ratings leaders, is "evidence" of Fox News' motivating this man to kill.  Sad.

But yes, I actually find your accusation fun.  The neo-fascism, the foot soldiering, the bombast, the bellicosity... you make it sound like an all out party!  Not to mention that it is you that is making the accusation.  Badge of honor and all that.

What those who wish the world where Fox News is no more really wish for is the world of yesteryear, where they didn't have to hear the discordant sound of opposition.  Of voices that couldn't find air time on the Big Three.  Damn those Center-Right opinions that make up a majority of the US population!
This message was last edited by the player at 05:06, Mon 10 Jan 2011.

I am not saying he is the undisputed sole product of Fox news. Again you overstate my point to lambast me. What I am saying is that Fox & the conservatives have been far more extreem and teh result has been shown in the fruits. This man did not just pick a random crowd to start shootin random people- his clear target was a politician, whom he has approached before with hostility, though also apprently with incoherancy.
My point is that when you go broadcasting a constant stream of hatred and vitriol in millions of homes you need to be aware that some of those people are actually taking what you say seriously, and litterally, and that you do have an ethical responsibility to monitor your own speach at minimum. Fox News is negligent at best and criminally negligant at worst in allowing their rhetoric to get to teh point where in teh past two years it has sparked numerous violent outbreaks- from the shootings in Liberal churches in texas, to teh assasination of George Tiller by one 'Lone Gunams' To the current assasination attempt, to the attacks on Democratic congresspersons offices when teh ehalth bill passed. Using intimidation as a political tactic is no longer mere rhetorhich for Fox News, the result have manifested in actual violence for 2 years now and they continue to justify their extreemism by claiming 'well hey the other guy is doing it to" which is like comparing an angry punh in the arm from my daughter to a blow on the chin from Mike Tyson- sure they both threw a punch but it just ain't the same thing. People are dying while Fox News *litterally* picks the targets then denies any responsibility.

Say what you will, I still believe that I am not in error when I state that FOX is neither fair nor balanced, especially when they give airtime to people almost as unbalanced as the gunman himself.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg #127):

Moderator post: Personal attacks are a violation of this forum's constitution. Please edit the offending post to remove personal attacks.

Thank you.

I overstate your point?  Read on:



In no way have you made any connection between this guy and Conservatives.



Apparently he was coherent enough for you to link him to Conservatives and Fox News.  How you accomplish this I know not.  So you seem to think he was crazy but that Fox News pushed him to it.  Perhaps he listened to Stained Class by Judas Priest as well.

You also have yet to explain the man's love of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.



Can we safely say I was not overstating your point?



You have now entered conspiracy theory and no longer hold any validity.

Both the left and the right use militaristic words in their rhetoric.  I have the Obama quote talking about bringing a gun to fight the GOP.  In fact, many of Obama's Union supporters have assualted people and yet they don't seem to make it into your equation.  Rahm Emanuel stabbed a knife into his steak at a press dinner and screamed the names of Senators, Congressmen, and press members who he felt were his enemies and added "Dead!".  He became the darling of the Democrats.  That doesn't fit your equation.  The DailyKos and his Net Roots movement use targets on districts and they don't seem to make it into your equation.  Democrats go on a rampage and you conveniently turn them into Conservatives.

You see what you wish to see and you hear what you want to hear.  You and other like-minded individuals are using this tragedy as a political tool to rant against your much-hated political enemies.  It is a simple procedure:

1) Find tragedy.
2) Blame Tea Party/Fox News/Bush/GOP/Conservatives/Cheney
3) Scream it from every other news source and website you can find.
4) Repeat.

Been there.  Done that.  As Dieter was fond of saying "This story has grown tiresome."  Continue this rant without me.

Do you even read what I write or do you look for the points you want to nitpick? I already said that yes both sides have used violent language, the difference is in degree. Pointing out instances of Democrats using violoent language does nothing to disprove that point.

Secondly Mein Kamph *is* a right wing work, that demonstrates nothing. As for the Communist Manifesto there are two explanations that spring to mind, contradictory thought they may be to each other:
1) know your enemy
2) There are many who believe that Marx was in fact a Capitalist lampooning Communist idealogy. It is possible he reads teh text in this way.

as to a connection with Fox Nes no I have not drawn a line of connections, niether is it my contention that Fox News hired him as a hit man to take out a specific target. However his target was one targeted by Fox news and Sarah palin in particular.

Fox News asked for people to make congressmen affraid to leave their offices if Healthcare passed, and the offices were vandelized and rocks thrown through them. They called George Tiller "Tiller the Killer" and suggested someone should take him out, and somebody did. This is the third time- more if you count some less solid connections, that Fox has called for vilence and violence has been the result. It's harm to claim rhetoric and innocence of intent with that kind of track record.

The fact is that when Fox and friends shoot their mouths off people wind up dead.

It does prove that it is on both sides.  What you don't seem to be getting is that there is no degree of difference.  Only your perception of it.



When in doubt, redefine.  Mein Kampf was written by Hitler the Socialist.  Left-wing all the way.  As I said, you're all in on this fantasy so I don't expect you to back down.  However, as more is coming out, I believe you have some retractions to make although I won't hold my breath.



Um, her district was targetted, not her.  They wanted to take her job, not her life.  If the mere image of a gun sight on a map is enough to make the insane kill then you would agree that we should ban violent video games?  Take violence out of RPGs?  I mean, who knows who might just "go off"?

You just can't admit that this lone nutcase decided to take out a Congresswoman all by himself.  This nutcase with a history of this anti-social behavior.  This nutcase who is described by a former classmate as a "left-wing pothead".



Sources?  Any connection between the killer and Fox News?  You claim a track record and offer no proof of one.  Sorry if I don't take your word for it considering the connections you are making between Fox News, Conservatives, and a lunatic who seems so unhinged that I doubt he could hold a coherent ideology.  But YOU see the connections!



No facts.  No validity.

I am pretty sure the irony of criticizing the overheated rhetoric of your political opponents while at the same time calling them accomplices to murder is lost on you.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:14, Mon 10 Jan 2011.

Do you just forget all history that doesn't fit your world view?

Let me begin with the simple point- regardless of what 8you* might believe, in most people's identification of right and left mein Kamph is on the extreem right. see http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm which thoroughly debunks your idea that Hitler is somehow equivelent to a modern democrat.

regarding protests of "Obamacare":
http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/.../20100322024343.aspx
http://www.sodahead.com/united...ces/question-926989/
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/...ism-stupak-obamacare

as for Tiller
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7192

enough of a history lesson?

No.  I just don't allow others to alter it to fit their prejudices.



Of course this debunks the idea "that Hitler is somehow equivelent to a modern democrat".  Too bad I never say any such thing.  Hitler was a socialist who moved to fascism.  Period.  But that was another argument.  The fact that the shooter liked this book shows that he was interested in Hitler and Fascism and perhaps was motivated by dreams of wielding that type of power of life and death.



Your first link is a joke.  There was never any proof that any of these incidences occur.  You need to get with the times on that one.  I don't see any proof of Obamacare "violence".

Your next link is proof?  Of what exactly?  Did you even look at it before you linked it?  I am starting to see how you come about your opinions.

The third merely repeats the debunked accusations made in the first.

Now if you are going to do it, do it right!  Here is a list of left-wing hate:

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servle...=BritishColumbiaHome
http://www.ktla.com/news/landi...ally,0,7135717.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...office_n_467264.html
http://www.newser.com/story/68...ea-radio-towers.html
http://www.hummerguy.net/humme...nites-fear-in-denver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr_4ZWEFOjQ
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...-office-attack_x.htm
http://www.wsmv.com/politics/17770884/detail.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...webbushoffice11.html
http://www.savethegop.com/?p=5005
http://www.statesman.com/news/...08/24/0824kibby.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...116QVQ.DTL&tsp=1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...07/07/BAP211L5HD.DTL

See?  Throw out a couple if you wish.  I can still find ACTUAL left-wing violence that has actual facts attached to it.

Even if I can, I would not blame the liberal media for inciting it.  These tools are responsible for their crimes.



So O'Reilly does not have the freedom to call Tiller a murderer?  Why?  I don't think I ever saw the part where O'Reilly tells anyone to murder the doctor.  He is merely pointing out what he sees as an atrocity.  While it might be offensive to some it is still protected speech.

I guess the next time you wish to give a history lesson it would be wise to include some actual history eh?

The point is that all six facts that you claimed did not exist did in fact exist.
1) O'Reiley called for a Holy War on Tiller
2) Tiller was shot by a man who believed he was doing God's work
3) Fox News called for intimidation of lawmakers who voted for "Obama care"
4) The offices of several senators who voted for Obama's healthcare bill were vandalized immediately after it passed.
5) Fox News targeted the congresswoman with images and fired off machineguns in Rallies to defeat her in the election.
6) the congresswoman was shot.

I am not saying there is a need for restriction ontheir speach, but do you maybe think they are taking the theme of "Republican revolution" a bit to far?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...s-faul_b_806312.html

that says it pretty well.

Say what?  Where does O'Reilly call a "Holy War".  All I see from your link is you using the term "Holy War" becasue the DailyKos guy does.  If you have this mythical link where BO calls for an actual "Holy War", I would love to see it.

So "fact" 1 falls.



This is an actual fact.  However it does nothing to prove what you are trying to sell.



Do you have an actual fact to back up this "fact"?  It would be nice.



Did you check out my links to the vandalism at GOP offices?  No?  I guess it only exists on one side then right?



Fox News fired off machineguns?  Wow.  Any source or link or basis in reality for this?  I already proved that the sights were on a map, not the Congresswoman.  Really reaching.



That is a very sad fact.  Made even more sad by the fact that you and your ilk are hickjacking this sad event in order to push a political agenda.

I even got an email for a petition to stop the hateful rhetoric.  I sent them back a scathing response and told them to fire whomever thought it wise to put my Libertarian ass on their email list.  It must have been my support for Hillary.



No.  You are just calling them accomplices to murder and suggesting they be dragged into court.  No big deal huh?

Republican Revolution.  Here is the WSJ calling it "The Obama Revolution":

http://online.wsj.com/article/...569611695588763.html

And here is HuffPo repeating it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...lution_b_178947.html

Yeah.  That revolution word thing can make people shoot people.

You are, in fact, calling for speech codes.  I don't agree with hate speech laws and I certainly am not going to agree that the use of the word revolution incites people to kill.  How about we adopt a revolutionary concept?  Let's hold the shooter accountable for the killings and not your most-hated news organization.  Sound good to you?

In reply to silveroak (msg #138):

Title's fine.  Everything else is crap.

Where did I call them accomplices to murder?
I have not claimed that, and if you have gotten that from what I have written you need to take a course in remedial English.
I have said that their hatefull rhetoric is irresponsible and a contributing factor, and negligant to the harm it causes. It is one heck of a leap from that to 'accomplice' which would require they actually *inteded* the violence to occur, whcih I never asserted, and directly consipred with te actor to accomplish that end, again which I never claimed. asking for proof of claims I did not make does not strengthen your argument which seems to be 'conservatives can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is anti-american'. Now please, if this is not your claim feel free to correct my understanding of your position.

Now O'Reiliey may not have used teh words Holy war, but he did compare Tiller to Nazis, and accused him of a variety of otehr criminal and inhuman acts: http://themoderatevoice.com/33...oreillys-cable-show/
It is worth noting that while Phil Klines indictments of Tiller wound up with not one charge being found to be worth the courts time, his methods in going after him were determined to be illegal, but Phil Kline is a tangent to the main point here.

And the point is that in a nation of 250 million people there are a lot of lunatics, and feeding tehir delusions with descriptions of your political opponents as being Nazis and enemies of the people and using imagery that suggests they might need killing is flatly irresponsible.

MODERATOR POST
Please, everyone, calm the posts down.  You're drifting well into discussing each other here, which is not what the forum is for.  Attacking each other is not allowed, not matter how frustrating you find each other.
END MODERATOR POST

In reply to silveroak (msg #141):

Scratch the term accomplices.  You are however indicating that Fox News holds some responsibility for this shooting.  Even before the guy's politics, if they can even be called that, and motivations are even known.  Where is your responsibility in knowing the facts before leveling blame?



Boy, you made me laugh at that one!  It is funny that you always blame me ("you are misrepresenting me!") for what you do on a regular basis ("you are saying 'conservatives can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is anti-american').  No one can say you don't possess a sense of humor.

No Conservative did any wrong here.  Attempting to link this atrocity to Conservatives is not anti-American, it is merely not nice.  I have dismantled every point you have made and you have offered up no supporting facts to make any of the claims you are making.

Once again, to use this crime to push your ideology is not nice to say the least.  I'm climbing out of the mud now.  Enjoy.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:02, Mon 10 Jan 2011.

1) I did not say "you are claiming" I said you *appear to be* claiming that position, and invited you to make your actual position more transparent.
2) I have offered up supporting facts, a few of which you have even acknowledged as facts, though you may dispute the conclusions drawn from them. Though in fact you have disputed conclusions I did *not* draw from them and acted as if this had somehow defeated my points, which you did not even address.

so let me break this down:
we agree that Fox News is not responsible for what this man did.

Please read that again in case you missed it, I have continually reitterated this point and you keep attacking my points with the assertion that I have said the opposite.

Where we disagree is in two points on your post, specifically:
1) "before his politics, if they can even be called that, and motivations are know." The man left a youtube video entitled 'final thoughts' and documented well (if with a notable lack of coherancy) what his politics and motivations are. The fact that a few points do not seem consistant with the others in the way you believe he should be thinking does not discount this fact. His motives are well documented, by him, prior to the fact.
2) "Fox News did nothing wrong". I agree that they are not responsible, but that is not the same thing as saying they bear no responsibility, or that they did nothing wrong. To some degree we all bear some responsibility. My diabetic testing supplies are made by a company which sponsors Fox News, which in turn painted a target on the victim. I am not claiming that they intended she be shot, but they did litterally paint a target on her.

Durring the British occupation of China people would 'run amok' running through the streets killing people until they were themselves killed. It was ultimately a form of protest, suicide, and lashing out at society rolled into one. It dod not occur before the British invasion or afterwards. The fact is that while it is easy to say "he was nuts, it's not anybody's fault" the fact is that insanity is a itself a response to environment, and how they contribute to that environment is their responsibility as much as any industrial manufacturer's contribution to our ecological/chemical environment. If a company dumps chemicals which results in a probable increase of 5%in the instance f cancer we hold them responsible. If Fox news is increasing the incidence of insanity in the country- well legally they are still protected by the first amendment, at least within certain constraints, but it is still a far cry from 'did nothing wrong'.

(just for extra clarity, this is NOT a moderator post)

Please people, calm down.  Those of you "on the left" who are requesting more civility in the political discussion should certainly be acting more civil here (you can't expect the other side to give you what you're unwilling to give it).  Those on the right should be acting more civil if for no other reason than to prove the other side wrong. ;)

The discussion has gotten very heated, and very tribal.  Each side is focused so intently on what the other is doing wrong (in their eyes) that they have no interest in examining their own side for possible fault.  Both sides are using the "Oh yeah?  Well look what you guys did!" line of argument, in which one side attempts to deflect fault from themselves by pointing out the faults of others.  Not the way forward, in my opinion.

To reiterate something I said earlier:  this is something we should all be able to agree on.  This shouldn't be a big argument.  We all think this guy was wrong shoot people.  That's a nice starting place on which to build.  Let's work on that, neh?

A selection of things that came to my mind while reading through the last few posts:

1.  We don't know enough about the killer to much about his political motivations yet.  Let's not jump to conclusions.

2.  What books a person has on their shelf doesn't necessarily reflect what they support.  I'm an atheist, but I have a bible on my bookshelf.  I'm quite convinced by evolution, but have a book about creationism on my shelf (as a result of discussion here, as it happens).  I think Charles Dickens' writing style is insufferable, but I have at least one of his books on myself.  Having "mein kampf" on your shelf doesn't make you a nazi, nor does having the communist manifesto on your shelf make you a marxist.  Again, lets not jump to conclusions.  We've got the guy, he's not going anywhere, so we've got time to wait and see what turns. up.

3.  The politicians on the right didn't want this to happen AND no one is saying they did.  Again, that's a point of disagreement that shouldn't be overlooked.  Saying their speech was irresponsible is not the same as saying they wanted or expected this to happen, or that they're accomplices.

4.  Saying people should tone down there speech isn't censorship.  Making rules that limits what they can say is censorship.  For example, my moderator post above IS censorship.  This post asking people to play nice ISN'T.  There is an important difference between the two that shouldn't be overlooked by either side.  For what it's worth, I'm in favor of all sides toning down the rhetoric, but am not in favor of passing any laws to enforce this.

5.  While "the left" may (or may not) be wrong to link this event to political rhetoric on the right, I don't think it's entirely fair to call them doing so pure political opportunism.  My reason for thinking so is that this isn't something out of the blue that no one expected that they've leaped on.  This is something they've been predicted would happen for a while now.  Giffords herself even commented on the type or rhetoric being used, noting that it could be interpreted in the wrong way and lead to violence.  The left may be guilty of confirmation bias, but I don't think it's fair to say their guilty of pure opportunism here.  From there point of view, it's a case of "we told you this would happen, and now it has."  They may be incorrect to draw a link, but I think it's fair to say they actually believe there is one, rather than just making one up to hurt their opponents.

6.  Whenever this kind of thing happens, the reaction I always want to see from "the other side" is one of not acting defensive.  Just say you're appalled by it, say it was wrong, and then don't add the jab at the other side or try to play the victim.  So far (somewhat surprising to me, I must admit) Sarah Palin has actually done just that.  Some of her aides have gone on the defensive, but to her credit, as far as I know Palin herself hasn't made any statements about it beyond sending her condolences to the families of those affected.  If she keeps it up, I'll be begrudgingly impressed.

7.  I think it needs to be said that the level of rhetoric has changed over the last year or two.  The idea that no one meant for their to be links or hints of violence isn't accurate, I don't think.  Talk of things like "second ammendment solutions" and the option of secession aren't just political metaphors or turns of phrase that all politicians use.  The talk of specifically violent revolt/revolution was the highest in the last couple years that its been at any point in my lifetime.  Despite the fact that most TeaPartiers are just retirees that don't want to pay taxes, there were some who were talking about being ready to kill and die to stop the liberals from "taking over."  The thing that's important to note, though, is that much of the most heated talk came not from politicians, or even media pundits, but from the people themselves.  What I saw going on was more of the politicians and pundits talking about violent revolution and uprisings because it was getting them votes.  They weren't leading the masses, they were following them.  And, to a degree, encouraging them.  That's what I didn't like, and continue to not like.  I want a politician who's willing to say "Ya know what, as much as I disagree with the other side, it's not right to fantasize about killing them.  As much as I want to beat them in an election, I don't want to turn the election into an apocolyptic, end-of-days scenario where if we don't win we think we have to resort to other methods.  And, most of all, I'm not going to tell you that that kind of thinking is okay just to get your vote."  But unfortunately anger is an easy emotion to harness, and whipping the people into a frenzy is a good way to get them out to the polls.  But for those odd wackos in the crowd, it's also a good way to get them to do something crazy.  Like I said, we haven't seen enough info to know if that's the case with this guy.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out he had never heard of sarah palin, to be honest.  But on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he had been influenced by some of the rhetoric being tossed around, either.  I stress that I'm NOT saying that people making over the top political statements want people to act violently, nor that they expect them to act violently, nor that they cause them to act violently.  But they can encourage someone who is already predisposed to act violently to do so rather than discourage them.  If you're sitting in the pub with your friend who just got dumped by his girlfriend, and he says "ya know, maybe I should go kill her," there are right things to say, and wrong things to say.  Saying "well, you'd probably get away with it, and nobody really likes her anyway," isn't the right thing to say, even though it might be what he wants to here.  Similarly in the political realm.  Even though many people on the right wanted politicians to stand up and promise them a fight to the death, it's not the right thing to do.  It's not about censorship, its about keeping things reasonable.

8.  Which brings me to the "well, yes, but the left use the same rhetoric too!" issue.  To a degree, yes, and we should oppose that too.  All politicians, of all stripes, whether left, right, or otherwise, should avoid the kind of "eliminate the enemy" talk that has become common place lately.  It's one thing to say you disagree with the other side, and don't want them to have power.  It's a rather different thing to say you want a country that doesn't have them in it at all.  Again, its wrong for both sides to use that kind of talk, and both sides do use it.  That said, however, I think the context is different.  The people on the left aren't showing up at political rallies with guns, they aren't calling for violent overthrow of the government, and they aren't threatening secession if they don't get their way.  Perhaps there are some fringe groups that are doing these things, but (and this is the real point), politicians and pundits on the left aren't seeking to be seen as part of that fringe.  The left is struggling to appeal to the center, much to the frustration of the more extreme members of its base (and I think that's probably not a bad situation, really), while those on the right seem to be tripping over one another to appear the most extreme.  In other words, there are wackos and extremists in both ends of the political spectrum, but right now at least, those on the right are much more likely to be gaining encouragement from their politicians than those on the left.  I think that's an important difference that people need to keep in mind when saying "oh, well so-and-so did it too!"  There's a time and a place when telling someone "no one really liked your ex, and you probably wouldn't even get caught if you did kill her!" is a joke, and there's a time and a place when it's really, really bad idea.  Its not just the words used that matter, but the audience, and the context as well.

9.  Is there any good reason not to dial back the firey, eliminationist rhetoric at this point?  Wouldn't we all be better off with more calm, rational, reasoned discussion from our politicians and pundits?  Shouldn't politics be a lot more boring, and a lot less fire-and-brimstone?

MODERATOR POST
Please note the big red letters!  It means you're being censored for real! ;)

I asked you guys not to talk about each other.  Calling each other idiotic or "less than honorable" is not debating the issue, it's name-calling.  Please adjust the posts to remove that kind of thing.  If you guys want to poke each other with verbal sticks, I'll bump the meta-discussion thread.

END MODERATOR POST

In reply to Tycho (msg #145):

Post edited in accordance to your moderator wishes.

Now to your post.

I am in full agreement with most of your non-moderator post as I am the one who orginally called out the use of this crime to point finger and make political hay.  The rest of my time is debunking those who did so I was not going "Oh yeah, well your guys did that!".  I was showing silveroak that bad behaviour is on both sides but only I said that those crimes were the sole responsibility of the ones committing them.  I would not, and did not, point to Obama's use of gun imagery as a call to shot GOP members.

In your efforts to be fair, be fair in your representation of my point.

Your point 1 is spot-on.

Point 2 misrepresents what I was doing.  Others called this a clear case of right-wing rhetoric while I was showing that his favorite book list was not really standard right-wing reading.

Point 3.  I took back the accomplices statement.  But, to be clear, if you are using this event to criticize the rhetoric of Palin or Fox News or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either:

a) Asserting a connection between the rhetoric and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call non-factual or disinformation.

or

b) You are not.  In which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which I find contemptible.

I don't think it is beyond the scope of a HOT thread to ask: Which is it?

Point 4.  Calling for the fines and lawsuits stifle free speech.  And this is where this kind of finger-pointing and false hand-wringing gets us:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...hreatening-lawmakers

This bill would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.  Yep, no one talking about censorship here.

Point 5.

I think it's perfectly fair.  They blood wasn't even dry nor did they know his politics before this meme was created.  As it comes out it seems that this turd had a history with Giffords dating back to 2007:

http://motherjones.com/politic...email-phone-message#

Pure, unadulterated opportunism.

Point 6. Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong.  If you think sitting back and letting others paint her as the one who incited this crime is impressive then you and I disagree on that.

Point 7.  The level of rhetoric has NOT changed.  Are you, or anyone else, seriously telling me that the Bush years didn't happen?  Kill Bush signs, movies about killing Bush, calling him a war criminal, a monkey, Hitler, etc.  Really?

How about during the Clinton years?  How about during the Reagan years when the President was considered one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

For those who see a change you have either not lived long enough or choose not to remember the bile and venom other Presidents and politicians have put up with.  It is a part of the territory.

Point 8.

To a degree?  They absolutely do.  Although you try to walk the middle of the road it seems you are drifting to the left.  Oppose rhetoric if you think that will do anything but rhetoric didn't kill those people, a lunatic did.

Point 9.  I calmly talk politics with friends, family, and perfect strangers all the time and have no problem with civility.  And that is about as much as I can control.  I do not back down though when people attempt to steer a tragedy towards their personal, political ends.  And that is what my beef with silveroak and the other guy was about.

Know that I bear them no ill will and would speak the words I wrote to their face.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2011010904478.html


I think that he targeted the congresswoman, and as a political objective (to the degree that categorization of realms of influence and infromation still amde sense to him) is well established.

as to a connection between publicly aired hate speach and the attack, i think it is necessary to recognize that 'a connection' is not a bianary yes or no criteria, but covers a range from "something Glen Beck said was included in his rantings" to "His insanity was caused by watching Fox News 24/7 while tripping on acid" to the radically absurd concepts like him being hired by Fox news- which i agree would be delusional, though I disagree they would get to the same level that this individual was at.
I do think it is a near certainty that in the absence of groups like the Tea party and Fox he would not have had the same focus on Giffords that he did wind up having with that as a part of his background as he descended into insanity. What the alternative would have been is of course an open question- maybe he just would have shot somebody else. That however does not change what did happen.
To me the most haunting aspect of this is the description of why it was so hard to get his mental health issues addressed- apparently when anybody approached his parents to try and discuss it they would turn and walk away without a word and were described as displaying similar behavior to their son...

   Used to be with a reaction like that they all would have been in the back of a fast cruiser on their way to a mandatory mental evaluation. This may not have been a bad idea.

Well, that's sort of what I was talking about.  The idea that bad behavior or person X makes it wrong to point out bad behavior of person Y doesn't make much sense to me.


So, how was I misrepresenting what you were doing?  Were you asserting that he couldn't be right-wing because of his books?  That he was less likely to be?  If so, that seems to be saying that you can tell what his political views are (or aren't) from the books I his shelf, which I don't think is necessarily possible (especially if only two books are mentioned).  If that's not what you were doing, I don't see the relevance of pointing out what books he had on his shelf.  If you're not asserting that it tells us something, why mention it?


I think you're drawing a stronger line here than exists.  "Asserting a connection" can mean "influenced" or "encourage already wacko tendencies" not just "made him do it" or the like.  And if someone believes the rhetoric influenced or played a part, even if they don't have proof of it, may be asserting a prediction.  Jumping to conclusions isn't good, but it's not the same as lying (disinformation) or political opportunism.

While I agree that many on the left have rushed to judgment, and may well end up being proven wrong, I do actually think they believe that there is a link, rather than just making one just to take advantage of the situation.  To me, calling someone an opportunist implies that they don't actually believe what they're saying, they're only trying to score points.  Whether they're wrong or right, I think those claiming a link actually believe what they're saying.  Mostly because they've been predicting this kind of thing for months.  Being wrong and being opportunist aren't the same thing, and being too quick to leap to conclusions isn't the same of being opportunist either.


Yep, and as I said, I'm opposed to legally forcing good manners on lawmakers.  I didn't claim no one was talking about censorship, and made clear that I disagree with those who are.  We shouldn't make the error, though, of assuming that everyone who would like to see more civility in politics wants to achieve that through legislation of censorship.



As I said, there's a difference between being incorrect, and being an opportunist.  While they may well turn out to be wrong, I'm pretty convinced that those asserting links actually believe that the links exist.  And again, I think that because they've been asserting that something like this would happen for some time now.  They may be wrong to expect such a thing, but they did expect it, and it's not opportunist to think that they've just been proven correct (it is, however, premature for them to do so, but again, that's not the same as opportunist), and redouble their efforts to get a change because of it.


I'm not sure how this shows opportunism.  Evidence that those asserting a link between right-wing rhetoric and the shooting may be wrong?  Sure.  But being wrong isn't opportunism, in my view.


Amongst politicians, sitting back, and not insulting your opponents very much impresses me.  Politicians who go on the attack as soon as anyone says anything bad about them are ten-a-penny.  Those who don't feel the need to tack on a jab at a political opponent when making a public statement are far more rare.


The level of the rhetoric may not have changed, but the type of rhetoric has, to a degree.  Yes, every president will be compared to hitler, and rude signs will be waved about.  I don't dispute that.  What is different about the recent rhetoric, in my view, is two things:
1.  the focus on armed revolt, revolution, killing/dying for political causes, etc.  That's fairly new, or at least the amount of people talking about that kind of things is new.  It's not just angry people shouting at each other and calling people names, it's people actually talking seriously about armed revolt.  Its people bringing weapons to political rallies.  It's people actually telling people to start intimidating politicians with acts of violence.
2. The fact that people making such claims are more embraced by those in positions of power.  There have always been crazies and wackos, but they've normally been treated as fringe groups.  Now politicians are doing their best to get those people on their side, and are appealing to that kind of thinking.

And this isn't just selective memory.  Threats of violence against politicians has increase significantly in the last 2 years.  Long time politicians have been saying they're feeling less safe.  People have been saying the rhetoric was going too far well before this event.  Heck, there was even a rather large political rally not too long ago basically just for that purpose (the John Stewart thing).

Yes, rhetoric has been heated in the past, and incivility has been high, but things really do feel different to me, and many others so it seems.  It's not a "oh, in the good ol' days when everyone was nice to each other" thing, it's more a "whoa, okay, I know politics ain't bean bag, but maybe we're taking it a bit far here," thing.  I guess for me, perhaps the difference between now and in the past, is mostly that in the past, it always seemed like the people shouting were just shouting.  When politicians start talking about secession and "2nd amendment solutions" and people start showing up at political rallies with guns, and talking about "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" it starts to seem like they're a bit more serious about actually doing something beyond just shouting.


Yes, I agree that a lunatic did.  And I certainly don't know if rhetoric played any role in this case.  But it's just as much a leap to conclusions at this point to say that it played no role in my opinion.  I won't be too surprised either way, to be honest, but I'm not going to say I know one way or the other yet, as you seem to be doing.


Let's look at this angle:  If, by some chance, it turns out this wacko was influenced by right-wing rhetoric, would that change your view at all?  Would it still be wrong of those on the left complaining about right wing rhetoric to do so if it turns out that this guy thinks he's starting a right-wing revolutionary war to get rid of liberals (to be clear, I am NOT asserting that he is, this is purely hypothetical here)?  If not, then I don't think it's opportunist for them to complain now.  They may well end up with egg on their face for being wrong, and they're certainly guilty of snap judgment, but that's different from opportunism.  Calling them opportunists is an attack on them, not too different attacks on right wingers, I'd say (both are asserting motives that aren't actually there).  By all means, argue that they're rushing to judgment, and argue that they don't have sufficient evidence to back up their claims, but as soon as you go the next step to making it a personal attack on their character, we're just back to the "my side is good, your side is evil" political bickering that I at least would like to see less of.  We're far to quick to go from "I disagree with what you're saying" to "you're a horrible person" in these kinds of discussions, which isn't helpful in my view.

But that wasn't the point.  The point was that bad behaviour of person X,Y, or Z has nothing at all to do with this tragedy.



You are misrepresenting what I was doing by completely missing the point of bringing up the books in the first place.  Nothing.  NOTHING.  At all was known about this lunatics political leanings and here we have people ranting about "right-wingers" and the "rhetoric of right-wing hate".  I brought up the books to show the stupidity of doing so based on nothing.  Those books pointed twoards a more left-leaning ideology.  Should I blame it on the left?  Which, of course, I do not.



But it is political opportunism and the spreading of disinformation.  You may not like the strong words but that it is exactly what was going on.  Sugarcoat this any way you wish but you are going against the very measured words you wrote above by defending these horribly misguided statements.



Bingo!  That is exactly what I am saying.



So they predicted a person who is a "liberal pot-head" and who believes in mind control through grammar would kill a Congressperson?  I don't believe I saw anyone predicting that nor does this fit any prediction given by anyone.  The quickness of this accusation of influence and its laser-like pointing at only the right-wing is opportunism at its very worst.



Then you missed the call for lawsuits and court proceeding on this.



Going after political opponents before you know the first thing about the shooter IS political opportunism.  As I told silveroak, when the depths of this freak's insanity comes out there should be some serious apologizing but I won't hold my breath.



She doesn't have to insult.  She has to stand up to the idiots who are blaming her district map, which the DNC used as well by the way, for a lunatic shooting people.  People should be very angry at this appalling display of political opportunism.

Considering your statement you must be extremely disappointed with the left-wing right now.



The left has been screaming about revolution all through the Bush years.  It is hardly new except that you now see it from the other side.  As I have shown with my links, the left is, and has been, doing that for years.  How about ACORN terrorising Goldman employees at home?  How about SEIU thugs beating a black man?



Don't start your statement with "the fact" when you are not stating a fact.  You don't like the Tea Party so you have marginalized them as the fringe.  Your bias against them is apparent so I understand why you take this position.

You have gone from "let's send our best to the victims" to being another person who is pushing the belief that this insane criminal is the result of Fox News and right-wing rhetoric.  Good job.



Perhaps if Congress had worked on the economy instead of their left-wing agenda while alienating the independents they would be more popular.  That's it!  The new meme will be that they brought this on themselves by pursuing their socialist agenda!  Brilliant.

That is a brutal and unfunny joke that demonstrates the lack of logic in your position.  But people ARE unhappy with politicians and violence against politicians is as old as history.  It does happen, it will happen, and it gets worse during troubled times.  Once again you link something with something else based on your prejudices.

As for that wonderful Jon Stewart thing, I especially loved how he had a person on stage who condones fatwas and death to those who insult Islam.  What a wonderful message of sanity huh?



You actually have said.  But hey, at least you start with "I don't know" before arguing exactly that point.



No.  It would not.  No marching orders were given and no assassination was called for by anyone.  This is a product of a delusional mind.

Would you be up for asking every lunatic who does something like this what motivated them and then would you support a call to either tone down the talk that inspired their madness?

We could tone down left-wing rhetoric, right-wing rhetoric, Jodi Foster movies, hip-hop songs, Islam, Christianity, and a whole host of other things people fixate on.  But that won't stop the lunatics.  As I said, this is just an attempt to go after right-wing speakers and politicians.



Yes.  It would still be wrong since no one is telling people to kill other people.  Military metaphors are rampant throughout our culture.  Do you want some "bullet" points outlining them?



Being responsible for your own political opportunism and being responsilbe for the death of a nine year-old girl are two completely different attacks don't you think?



As I said, blaming anyone, and blame is what is being thrown about here, for the death of human beings for speaking your political mind is low.  Very low.  And to do so before you know anything about the shooter is a good indicator that facts and logic are not what is moving you.

I did not engage in this back and forth to be helpful.  I engaged in this because I believed it was disgusting to bandy about blame in such a callous and cold-hearted manner.  I find it sickening as you can plainly tell and intend to remain that way.

If you wish for me to bow out of this I will do so.  Your game, your rules.

There is always Jon Stewarts point last night "If nothing else we should tone down the rhetoric so those who are actually insane actually stand out."

In which case...why bring up the bad behavior of someone else?


Yes, and I said I disagree, because having books about X don't make you a necessarily a supporter of X.  The "don't jump to conclusions" thing cuts both ways, in my opinion.  If it's wrong to just assume he's a right-winger because he shot a democrat (and it IS wrong to assume that), it's also wrong, in my opinion, to assume he's a left-winger because he's got the communist manifesto.


I don't recall having defended any statements.  If anything, I've said people are leaping to conclusions, exhibiting snap judgment, and that there's a good chance that they'll end up being proven wrong (a chance that looks to be growing as we learn more).  I haven't defended any statements.  To the extent that I've "defended" anyone, it's only in so far as disagreeing with your accusation of political opportunism.  It's more of an appeal to accuracy position, than a "those people's actions were right" opinion.



Okay, that's good to know.  At least we're dealing a substantive disagreement, rather than just a semantic one, which is somewhat refreshing.

That said, your claim is a pretty big one:  those claiming a link between this attack and right-wing rhetoric aren't just wrong, but they know they're wrong, and are saying it anyway.  Since you've made your view of leaping to conclusions about people without proof, I'm sure you have some evidence to back up this claim.  Can you share it with us?


No, but they were predicting that someone crazy would get weird ideas and start shooting people.  As I've said numerous times now, I'm NOT saying this case proves them right (in fact, its looking more and more like it won't), but they have been expecting someone to listen to right-wing rhetoric, go a bit nuts, and starting shooting democrats/liberals/etc.  I'd say the prediction of outcome is pretty well matched, even if the expected cause turns out to be well off.

Imagine an analogy:  you live by a bar, where people frequently go, get drunk, and then drive home.  You think "all these people keep driving home drunk!  One of these days they're going cause an accident!"  Then you hear of a car crash, late at night, not too far from your home.  You might think "I bet it was those people driving drunk!"  Even if you turn out to be wrong, it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption to make, given your expectation that they were going to cause an accident sooner or later.  You shouldn't just assume it without any other information, but you'd probably be forgiven if you did.

It's somewhat similar for the people who leaped to conclusions about this guy.  It's wrong that they didn't wait for more info before accusing people, but it's likely because that's what they were expecting, not because they know it's not true but are just evil.


No, didn't miss them.  In fact, if I recall, I made a comment saying that I was opposed to them.  Like I said, though, we shouldn't assume that everyone who wants more civility in politics wants to achieve that through laws.  This seems like something we agree on (well, the not making laws part at least, not sure if you're in favor of more civility or not), but you keep trying to tell me I've missed something, or didn't see this or that.  Why?  To make it extra clear: I am opposed to making new laws or rules to govern what politicians can or can't say.  I'd like them to be more civil and responsible with their speech, but I'd like them to do it voluntarily (or at worst due to pressure from their constituents) rather than because some laws forces them.


That seems to be our main point of disagreement.  I think it's leaping to conclusions, snap judgment, and generally a bad thing to do, but it's not the specific bad thing of political opportunism.  As you agreed above, calling political opportunism implies that they don't actually believe that this guy had anything to do right wing rhetoric.  That's a non-trivial step further than just not knowing anything about him.  It's possible to be wrong without being an opportunist, in my opinion.


Some of it, certainly.  But extreme disappointment with politicians and pundits is more or less the norm for me, unfortunately.  I'm extremely disappointed with politicians of one stripe or another on a more or less daily basis.  At the moment I'm fairly disappointed with all the politicians and pundits, of all political persuasions, that are spending more talking about what's bad about their opponents than on what we can do to make things better.


As I said, there are always fringe groups shouting crazy things.  Yes, I'm sure there were plenty of leftist groups calling for revolution during the Bush years, but they weren't considered main stream, and they didn't really have much political clout.  The politicians didn't seek out their vote, and didn't play to their revolutionary ideas (note: when I say "revolutionary" here, I mean it in the literal sense, as in violent overthrow of the government).

As for ACORN and the SEIU, why is your first reaction to point out the bad behavior of other groups?  Do these acts somehow make other bad actions acceptable?  More to the point, though, such action wasn't promoted or endorsed by politicians.  In fact, dems were pretty quick to throw ACORN under the bus when that pimp video came out.

That's sort of my point.  In the past (by which I mean, the last couple decades), when groups on either end of the political spectrum said something or did something that was going too far, politicians tended to distance themselves from them, and try to deny any link to them.  Now it seems like some politicians are embracing some of the more out there ideas (secession, violent revolution, "second amendment solutions", etc.), and are saying more and more over-the-top things to get the support of these people.


I don't believe I've pushed that belief.  If my posts say otherwise, please point it out to me, because I've been trying to say "wait, we don't know what, if anything, caused this, so lets not jump to conclusions."  If I've made a typo, or otherwise been unclear, please point it out, so I can amend it.  Or maybe you misread or misunderstood something I wrote?  Go back and have a look, perhaps it's a communication problem?  On the other hand, if you feel that you can make such claims about me simply because I disagree with you on a few things, well, let me know that too I guess.


I'd agree with this, and it seems like something we might be able to build on.  If violence gets worse during "troubled times" when people are unhappy with politicians, doesn't it make a bit of sense that people trying to make people feel angrier and more unhappy about particular politicians is only going to make things worse, and increase the chance of violence?  And if you add in frequent positive references to violence (note, not just metaphors, but allusions to actual, literal violence), won't that only increase the odds of someone deciding to take their anger out on a politician?

If (1) being angry/unhappy makes people more likely to commit acts of violence, and (2) it's possible to make people more angry/unhappy via political rhetoric, then in seems to follow that political rhetoric can lead to an increased chance of violence.  That doesn't mean all violence is the result of political rhetoric, nor even that any violence is, really.  But it does seem a rational argument for opposing that type of political rhetoric, no?


Didn't say it was wonderful, but no, I hadn't heard that.  Please elaborate.



You're putting words in my mouth here, which I'd rather you not do.  Let me be very clear: I don't know one way or the other if political rhetoric played any part in this shooting.  I DO NOT know.  I AM NOT asserting any link between political rhetoric and this case.  Please do not claim that I've said otherwise unless you can point me to the place where I did, so that I can fix the typo or clarify it.  I've gotten the impression that you feel it's not appropriate to make claims about people without the evidence to back it up, so please give me that courtesy.


So, in your view, as long as you don't say "go do this", you're not responsible for any actions that anyone takes in response to things you say?  I tend to disagree.  Words can influence people, even when you're not using the imperative.  As Gabriel Giffords said, words have consequences.  Its possible speak in an irresponsible manner, even when you're not telling someone to do something, and even if you don't want them to do something.


I would certainly like us to try to understand what motivate people in every situation like this.  As for whether we should tone them all down, it depends on what it was, and how much affect it would have, and what the cost of toning it down would be.  I would be all for toning down of both left wing and right wing rhetoric, because I think the cost of doing so is fairly minimal (even negative), and the benefits much greater.  Toning down Jodi Foster movies wouldn't have much effect, I wouldn't guess.  Toning down Christianity and Islam, yes, certainly!  I'd very much like to see extremists in both religions back off quite a bit.  (I feel that I should probably repeat here my opposition to laws to enforce this--I'm talking about voluntary reduction in rhetoric, not enforced reductions).


It's not the metaphors that particularly bother me, and more the literal allusions to real, actually violence.  "Second amendment solutions" is a euphemism, but its not a metaphor.  It's not a code for "vote them out of office," it means "shooting people."  Likewise for talk of secession.  Likewise for talking about "watering the tree of liberty."  These aren't metaphors, they're references to real, actual, honest-to-goodness violence.  Those are the kinds of things I'm bothered by, not so much metaphors or analogies, and the like.


Does that make one of them okay?  Though it's the political standard, I don't agree with the "well, they did something worse!" defense of actions.

The statement was made that the worst offenders are the right-wing and that is a falsehood.



I didn't assume he was.  I was calling him a nutcase.  You missed the point.



You defend the opinion that the dialogue has gotten worse (it hasn't) and that rhetoric might have played a part in this atrocity (it didn't).



The fact that they are saying amazingly the same thing on all fronts.  It is a coordinated message parroted by many a voice.  If you claim to be an intelligent person then how can you make statements that someone is attributing to a killer's world view when you have absolutely no evidence.  Obviously a conscious prejudice is at work.

I don't think the argument is stupid.  I think it is calculated.  But hey, they can correct me if I am wrong and claim stupidity.



You are darned right it won't prove them right.  The prediction being made was that a right-wing wacko would start killing people.  So how does this incident prove them right?  You are willing to ham-handedly smash this situation into a prediction it does not fit.



What you are missing is the political motive behind the call for more "civility".  How civil is it to point a finger and accuse someone, anyone, of being the reason a whacko slaughtered innocent people?  It is a leap of logic that can only be made by jumping over the bodies of the dead.  It is appalling and if you really stood for civility you would denounce the notion immediately.  But hey, you kinda see the point in using slaughtered people as political pawns if it is done in a misguided manner.

Becasue that is what you are doing when you immediately jump to the conclusion that mere political metaphors are the reason a nine year-old girl is lying dead.

In the spirit of berevity I would just say that I am disgusted with anyone who made the snap judgement to tar and feather their political opponents by immediately crying out and pointing the finger of blame.  If these people actually did jump to conclusions as you say then they should have no problem taking their words back and admitting their error.  There is your test between "oops!" and political opportunism.

It's not a conspiricy, it's a cascade.
For years it has been predicted that the right wing rhetorhic would provoke someone into attacking liberals. actually that part *has* been proven in other cases, witness the shooting of Tiller, the executions in a liberal chruch in Texas, and the violence and vanadalism against the offices of Democratic supporters of the Health Care Reform Act.
Now on top of this established expectation teh detective in charge of the investigation made comments that it would be better if the political rhetoric were toned down. This *impled* a connection to a standard analytical expectation.
Which is hardly idiocy, though it admitedly might be considered a bit reflexive.

When you have a known opponent who has been watching you through a gun scope for months and you hear gunshots, you tend to return fire where you expect the bullets will be coming from. In this case we are talking rhetorical barrages, not litteral, but the same principle holds.

and we still can't say it played *no* part, though it doesn't appear to be the major driving motivator, at least from teh current round of released evidence which, who knows, maybe something else will come out by the end of the week.

Ah, okay.  I can probably live with that, though it didn't seem like that's what you were saying before.  If that's all you mean, though, fair enough, as long as we keep the proper emphasis on "might" in the above, and not try to imply that I've said "did."


That seems an odd explanation to me.  The fact that so many people leaped to the same conclusion so quickly after the attack seemed to indicate to me that they all believed it.  It was too quick to be orchistrated centrally, in my view.  It was prejudice at work, I'd agree, but not the calculating, planned-out kind (which is pretty rare, really), and more the knee-jerk, believe what you're expecting before you have evidence type.


I'd say there are other options, such as simply being too quick to judge, simply incorrect, etc.  But if the only two options are "evil" and "stupid," I'd say "stupid" is the safer bet 99% of the time.



Hmm...go back and read that quote from me again.  Why ask me "how does it prove them right?" if I made it very clear that I wasn't saying it did?  Why say I'm "ham-handedly" trying to make it fit something, when we both agree that they predicted some crazy person would shoot a democratic politician, and we both agree that they had expected it to be a right-winger influenced by political rhetoric, and both agree that some crazy person did shoot a democratic politician, and we both agree that there's not any evidence that he was a right winger?  You seem to keep trying to imply that I'm saying he was a right winger, despite my repeated statements to the contrary.  Please, just listen to what I actually do say, and don't assume things beyond that because you feel I'm "from the left."

Let's be clear on this prediction thing.  You seem to agree that people have been expecting a right-winger to go nuts and start shooting people.  We do agree that someone did go nuts and start shooting people.  What I'm saying is that because they expected a right-winger influenced by rhetoric to do this, when someone did, they leaped to the conclusion that it was a right-winger influenced by rhetoric.  I'm not saying it's okay that they leaped to that conclusion, and in fact I've said a number of times now it's not a good thing for them to have done.  What I'm saying is that what their guilty of is leaping to conclusions based on their expectations, not on cold, calculated opportunism.

To be honest, if you think about the claim you're making, that they knew this person wasn't a right-winger when they made their statements, it doesn't really make much sense.  If they knew he wasn't a right-winger, and that the evidence wouldn't indicate that he was, publicly stating that he was would only make them look a bit silly in a few days time.  If they were cold and calculating enough to plan a massive campaign to get this idea out there in mere hours after the shooting, surely they would have been able to think "wait a minute, won't we look a bit foolish in a few days time when everyone else finds out what we already know?"  To me, the very fact that they're now starting to look like they were wrong makes the claim of calculated and planned misinformation rather hard to believe.  If they're so clever to be pulling all the puppet strings of so many people so quickly, how could they also be so dumb to not think a few days into the future?  Just doesn't add up to me.  Bias and over-confidence in ones own beliefs seems like a far more likely candidate to me than political masterminds intentionally spreading misinformation so quickly.


Depends on if you're convinced they actually are that reason, I suppose.  And, remember, different people said different things.  While I'm sure some people went so far as to claim rhetoric was "the" reason this happened, I didn't happen to see or hear anyone saying it.  Mostly what I saw was people saying or implying that it "influenced" the person.  Still seems likely to be shown to be false, but it's a rather different thing to be wrong about.  I'd agree that people who said rhetoric was "the reason" this happened weren't being civil (and if you recall my first post on this topic, I reminded people on the left to be civil to others since that's what they were calling for), but I don't think "lets tone down the rhetoric before this happens again" is particularly uncivil.


I haven't said that, nor implied it.  Like I said in my last post, you've shown a great distaste for blaming people for things they haven't done.  I'd like to hope that applies to your own words, not just that of those you disagree with.


I didn't immediately jump to that conclusion, and in fact have spent most of my time in this discussion saying that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.  Again, please stop making up my position for me, and instead just read what I write.  It'll probably lower both of our blood pressures a bit.


I'd agree that there's plenty of people who should apologize, if no further indication of influence of rhetoric shows up.  I'd say it's not a good test for whether or not its opportunism, however.  Politicians aren't very good at apologizing, unfortunately, and pundits even worse.  Some will likely admit their error, but many will probably want to move on from it as quickly as possible.  Isn't the right way to go about it, but it tends to be how these things go, unfortunately.  Without putting too fine a point on it, I didn't noticing you taking back any of your words and admitting error in response to some of the things in my last post, and I'm not expecting you to do so after accusing me of "see[ing] the point in using slaughtered people as political pawns if it is done in a misguided manner," either.  When people say the wrong thing and get called on it, they usually just drop it, or try to change the subject.  Again, it's not the ideal, but I wouldn't call it evidence of political opportunism, either.

As I see it, we have three main disagreements:

1.  You think "the left" didn't even believe the things they were saying, and I think they did.

2.  I think the tone of political speeches has changed of late, and you think it hasn't.

3.  You don't think speech can influence levels of violence against politician (with the possible exception of actually saying "go do X"), and I think they can (which isn't the same as saying they did in this particular case).


The first one I covered above.  The second I'm not sure how we can settle.  I think much of the country agrees that the tone has been different recently, but I'm not sure how we can objectively test it.  Any ideas?

On the third, I laid out an argument in my last post.  I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.  Why are you so convinced that what people say has no impact on the way other people behave?

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c...overheated-rhetoric/

An interesting blog article from Ross Douthat, conservative commentator at the NYtimes.  I don't usually agree with Douthat often, and I'm not sure if I do this time either, but it's certainly given me something to think about.  Is it possible that the heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of american politics is due to the fact that americans don't really disagree all that much, and perhaps even aren't all that interested in politics unless its framed as an existential threat?

Here is the most accurate depiction of the events in Tucson:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io...1/01/csi-tucson.html

Enjoy.

. . .

Dude.

Not funny.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:09, Wed 19 Jan 2011.

This message was deleted by the player at 17:39, Thu 10 Mar 2011.

In reply to Falkus (msg #160):

Oh yes, this invalidates the entire Tea Party movement.  Good show.

This message was deleted by the player at 01:41, Wed 02 Mar 2011.

Matthew 12:37

Bingo, right in one.

I don't think that this represents the "little guy" (or that it's necessarily a mainstream tea party position), but I think the idea may have merit. I would expand it beyond 'must own land'. But I think the idea of 'you should have a stake in this nation before you start guiding it' is a good one.

This message was deleted by the player at 17:39, Thu 10 Mar 2011.

Depends on the requirements for citizenship...

In reply to Falkus (msg #165):

So why is this Judson Phillips a prominent leader?  Anyone can call themselves a Tea Party member and there is no central leadership.  In fact, Tea Partiers themselves have quite spirited debates amongst themselves about what they believe and how they would go about acheiving it.  It is not a lockstep party like the Democrats, Republicans, or the Progressives.

So point me out some bad apples.  Shall we mine the internet for quotes from the fringes?  I got a ton of Green quotes about how you should have to prove your ability to pay for children before being "allowed" to have children.  Or how about the Progressives and their quotes on the inability of most people to handle the "big" issues in their lives?

How come the Progressives and Greens have so many bad apples?

Progressives are a party? I have heard the label more applied to people Republicans don't like more than it being any kind of organization...
And which bad apples are you talking about amongst Greens? And are they an actual organization, or just people you have decided that label should apply to? tea party leadership is admittedly a low bar- you have to call yourself a tea party and have people following you. But that is still a higher Bar than the Glen Beck "I found this insane quote and decided to attribute it to a group I don't like and call it typical" style slander.

Indeed, the Tea Party is unusual in that its structure is not centralized and hierarchical. You become a leader by leading, not because of dealings in smokey rooms. On the one hand, it makes it a more democratic party - on the other, your kooks with a loudspeaker suddenly get hailed as 'party leaders' because there's no party roster to say otherwise.

And no, I don't consider citizenship having a stake in a country. My understanding is Tycho is a citizen of the US, but he lives and works in a foreign country. I don't believe he owns land in the US, or has any investments tied up here. Nothing against Tycho, but what stake does he have? That he still follows American sports teams? If the US went belly up, what would Tycho lose?

In reply to silveroak (msg #168):

The Progressive Party has is spread out much like the Tea Party movement.  There is an official Progressive Democrat group that prides itself on connection to the Progressive party of the past.

There is also an official Green Party.

That being said I am not going into a stupid quote battle.  Already did that and proved my point.  You can take any movement and find a member whose words do not reflect the majority of that movement's members.  I would rather debate the merits of the official platform of said group.  It would be different if all, or majority, of the members where spouting off craziness.

Boy, you really don't like Glenn Beck do you?  You bring him up constantly.

Neither do I. If he didn't have a show on FOX he would be in a mental institution.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg #171):

I don't get to watch him much but he seems to piss off all the right people.

The point is that saying "I can find a fringe quote too" misses the point. First of all these are tea party *leaders*, not just some guy who has a wierd idea that has been tangentally assosciated with the tea party. Which means they have tea party followers. They are represenative, to a degree, of the tea party.
Which comes down to one of teh major flas in teh tea party- it does not exert any kind of control over it's leadership,either top down or ground up, to make certain it follows a theme or concensus. Any lunatic with an agenda that can whip up a following can be part of the Tea Party. I could go find some frineds and starta pro-Obama tea party chapter and be considered a leader in the tea party. Inevitably this will lead to problems with teh Tea Party itself as it becomes fragmented and loses any defining characteristics. At this point in time the fringe is spreading to teh right, but it is fair to critique it according to what it's leaders say. It is certainly worth noting that teh problem may be as much administrative as idealogical, but if you can find a *leader* in the green or Progressive parties making similarly outrageous remarks that will certainly say more than simply a member of the parties.
As for Glen Beck I do find it especially repugnant to try and claim that over 30% of teh country is actively trying to destroy the same country simply because you have a difference of opinion with them, and believe he is more closely connected to the reality of Jack Chick comics than the real world.
Or does Jack Chick also tick off the right people?

I'd agree for the most part, though, if the US goes (nearly) belly-up, and jacks up its taxes higher than those in the UK, I'll have to pay the difference back to uncle sam, so I do have some stake.  Also, it's the only country which I'm allowed to vote in, though that's a bit circular given the original point.  But yes, over all, I think it could be argued that a non-citizen living in the US would have at least as much stake in the country that I do, as a citizen not living in the country.

In reply to silveroak (msg #173):

Who said, in response to a non-Union worker being shot during a strike, "I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned."  That would be Richard Trumpka, Head of the AFL-CIO.

At another strike he said, "kick the shit out of every last worker who crosses the picket lines".

And now he is also in charge of the Democrat Get Out the Vote Campaign.  His duty is to "energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda."

Army?  Fight?  This thug is in charge of one of the largest Unions in the country.  Dare I say that this DB has thousands more "followers" than Judson Phillips who runs a blog and isn't promoting thuggery.

That's Unions invalidated.  So, let's move onto the Progressives, the Greens, the Democrats (oops, already done considering the Unions own them), etc.  Hell, I could just use Obama's quotes to invalidate the Democrats.



Don't you dare put down Jack Chick!  That man is a visionary!  I have quite a collection of his works.  I really do.  You never know what new thing is going to send you straight to Hell.  So yes, Jack Chick DOES tick off the right people I guess if you are ticked off.

Look at what you wrote about Glenn Beck.  Now look at what you write about the Tea Party or Republicans or Conservatives.  How do they differ in concept?  The way you portray the Tea Party is similar to how you protray Glenn Beck's portrayal of those who don't hold his opinions.  At least from some of your writings.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:32, Fri 04 Mar 2011.

1) I think saying that demonstrating that unions ar ethugish is a far cry from 'totally invalidating' them. as opposed to the leaders of a group promoted as being grass routes giving statements which suggest, inessence that 'commoners' should not be allowed to vote. Now if you had the head of the AFL-CIO making statements that profit is king or that collective bargaining is for patsies who can't bargain individually, that would be in the same category of effect. Not saying his remark is justified, just applying context.
2) The what I what said? I'm not even the person who remarked that it 'totally invalidated'  the tea party. I think you may have a skewed view of what my view is of your heros. The tea party si incohesive and prone to fringe 'infection' Glen beck is a lunatic with a microphone, the Republican party is a collection of groups who have made a devil's bargain with each other and have abandoned core principles in favor of political gain. The Democrats have been spineless and unprincipled. And all of the above have the potential to change, good or bad. What I object to most is when politics becomes about name calling and deception rather than discussion of differences of perspective. because ultimately taking that approach changes one's own perspective till the one seeking monsters becomes the monster they accuse others of being.

And here is one of YOUR elected representatives actually out and out proposing bringing down the country if she wasn't elected. So that's the tea party invalidated by your own standards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ed-2nd_n_614003.html

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?" ~ Glenn Beck

So by that same reasoning I just invalidated Glenn Beck, for the same reason.

I can keep this up all week.

I'm sorry, reading the article, I'm not sure where the problem is.

I think the problem would be that it seems to imply a sense of "well, we'll try to win through an election, but if that doesn't work, we'll just have an armed revolt and get our way like that."  Now, that's not the only way to interpret it, but I can see how someone would take that as her message.  And IF (a non-trivial if) that's the message that's taken from her statement, then it would be problematic because it's a sort of rejection of democracy.  Democracy doesn't just mean getting your way if you get the most votes.  It also means accepting that you don't get your way if you don't.  Or, perhaps, at least working within the rules of the system if you don't get your way.  (and yes, I think a case could be made that democrats in WI are guilty of the same kind of thinking at the moment--though bringing the government to a halt isn't as bad as civil war).

Another way of looking at it is that talking about "second amendment remedies" to votes that don't go your way is not what the founding fathers were talking about when they set things up.  The "tyranny" they were worried about was not the "wrong" side winning an election, but rather the government not allowing elections at all.  Even if we accept that the 2nd amendment was put in place to make armed revolt possible (which is a non-trivial assumption), that doesn't mean anytime politicians aren't doing what I want that I'm justified to go around killing them or their supporters.  If the government is being oppressive enough that killing is warranted, you shouldn't have much problem getting them voted out of power (provided the election isn't rigged).  If they manage to get re-elected fairly, then most of the people don't find them to be tyrannical, and you really need to reconsidered if armed revolt is an act of defending your rights, or just an expression of anger at not getting your way.

That's why I think Angle's comments were problematic.  Armed revolt isn't some trivial act that should be bandied about like its no big deal.  It shouldn't be considered an option every time the other guys get their way.  It shouldn't be considered as the back-up plan for when elections don't go our way.  It shouldn't be considered the way of forcing people who disagree with us to do what we want them to.

Put yet another way, saying "we'll have a vote, but we've got second amendment options if that doesn't go our way" is a bit like saying "I'll ask that girl to go home with me, but if she turns me down, I can just glass her boyfriend and spike her drink."

This message was deleted by the player at 17:39, Thu 10 Mar 2011.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of what Walker is trying to do--getting public employees to take a pay cut in order to pay for benefits seems fine, but adding the stuff about removing collective bargaining rights seems like trying to get a political advantage out of the budget issue.  But even if I don't like, and even if most people in WI don't like it, the republicans won elections, and should be allowed to govern.  Even though I agree more with WI dems on this particular issue, I think preventing a vote on it is an attempt to stymie the democratic system.  So I'm sympathetic to their cause, but less so with their method.  Particularly because methods that are used only in "extreme situations" at first tend to become the norm over time in US politics, which can lead to governments being incapable of getting anything done.  Right now its dems stopping reps from taking away union rights, but next time around it might be reps stopping gay rights, say.

This message was deleted by the player at 17:39, Thu 10 Mar 2011.

What walker did was more than corrupt, it was an insult to the democratic process. I don't know what the actual numbers were in Wisconcin, but as a hypothetical analogy- if the Republicans control 60% of the house, and 60% of Republicans are on board with a change of this type (forceing people to lose collective bargaining rights) then by shutting teh Democrats out of the vote a 36% 'majority' can carry the vote.
Now most places require a quorum - ussually 2/3 to be present which means it would be more likely to be 70% and 60% with a 42% 'majority', but in this case what they did was make sure the Democrats were registered as present to get teh quorum then take teh vote without them, so it may well be that the vote carried with less than a 42% 'majority'.
To me that kind of behavior is grounds for removing someone from office.
Of course part of this kind of dirty politics is getting the 40% of Republicn represenatives who would not be voting for the measure to go along with it, but as far as I'm concerned this is where the question comes down to how many and who should be removed from office and possibly imprisoned. I don't know if all of the Republicans who were elected should be reated so harshly but teh fact that nobody has broken ranks to state that 'hey this was wrong' says something about the state of thh party. And that something is that despite the attitude of 'Bush was just one bad apple' the problem is much more deeply rooted than that.

I don't know.  Like I said, I think Walker is using the budget problem as an excuse to go after political opponents, but the republicans really do have the votes on this.  If they didn't, the dems wouldn't need to run to prevent a quorum.  In this case it really is the democrat minority trying to subvert the republican majority.  Just because I agree with their goal doesn't mean I'm comfortable with them using whatever means they can come up with to achieve it.  We can point out what Walker has done all we like, but it doesn't give democrats the right to break the system, in my opinion.  It sort of seems like we've come to the point in the US where more and more politicians (and non-politicians) think they don't have to accept votes that don't go their way.

The first vote was the other way arround- the Republicans registered the democrats as present then held the vote while they were meeting in the hallway with an arranged distraction. Are you telling me that doesn't stink to high heaven to you?

Do you have a link for that?

From how you describe it, yes, that sounds sketchy.  But from everything I've heard the republicans have all the votes they need to pass the bill, so it's a fairly small matter.  Now, if they didn't have the votes needed to pass the bill, and did that, that'd be entirely another matter.  But whatever the case, the bad actions of one side don't justify the bad actions of the other.  "They started it!" isn't what I want politicians using as their justification.

Yes, silveroak, provide an actual link to this fantasy.  Actually working in Madison, right off of capital square, I have never heard this wonderful story in all the weeks of listening to the protestors.  The Dems squealed like stuck pigs when the Republicans cut off debate after sixty straight hours as well.  Walker and the Republicans have the right to run the government of Wisconsin they way they want and have done so within the rules that govern the passing of legislation.  They won the election after all.

The point is that Walker is doing what Walker said he would do.  That is why we elected him.  I firmly believe that there should be no public service Unions and definitely no collective bargaining.  FDR said, "All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service".

In the private sector, management has a strong incentive to negotiate pragmatically, the need to maintain a profit to stay in business.  Customers have a choice of buying cheaper products and services elsewhere.

In the public sector, such restraints disappear.  The employees, through their Union campaign contributions and organizing activities, often get to determine who sits on the other side of the negotiating table from them.  That is a lose/lose propisition for the taxpayer.  So those of you screaming about the Koch brothers really need to look up how much Unions funnel into the pockets of politicians.  The Koch brothers got nothing on the Unions.

When politicians who owe their power to public employees conduct so-called negotiations with them, taxpayers are left utterly defenseless. Since government is a monopoly, citizens are not permitted to shop around for another one that negotiates better contracts and provides cheaper services.  Citizens must simply pay, under the threat of arrest and imprisonment, no matter how voluntary Harry Reid says taxes are.

The real blow to democracy was the senators leaving the state.  The elections went the Republicans way.  To leave your post when things are not going your way is not brave or idealistic.  It is spitting in the face of Wisconsinites and preventing real democracy from occuring.  Don't like the bill?  Stand on the floor and scream it to the high-heavens.  Then vote.  Take the votes of those who oppose you and then use those votes against them in the next election cycle.  If the voters don't like how the Republicans are running the show they can go back to the Democrats.

On a side note: The Koch brothers are libertarians.  They contribute to many pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, and anti-war organizations and candidates.  They are also for small government and free markets and I guess that is what you guys are freaking out about.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com...nds-long-vote/20970/


So mathematically it does sound like they had the majority, but by 6 votes, and they still used dirty politics to ensure the victory with a coordinated suprise vote to make certain all 'Yeas' would be recorded and 'nays' would be excluded. Also I note this was a digital voice recorder counting words, I'm not sure that is exactly prof against effective ballot stuffing when it is recording that many responses in that much time...

I mostly agree.  Out of curiosity, do/did you feel the same about dems during the healthcare debate?


Do you have a link on that?  I've heard that a lot of people who voted for him are now saying that this isn't what he said he would do.  I hadn't got the impression that union breaking was something he pushed during the campaign.


And state government have to have balanced budgets, so are similarly constrained with what they can give away at the bargaining table, I would argue.


This is a legitimate concern, though one that also comes up due to political contributions of many types.  Large businesses that, through their campaigning aid, get to determine who sits on the regulatory boards that police their industry, for example.  That doesn't meant it's not something we need to be careful of, just that it's not a problem uniquely with unions, but rather with campaign contributions in general.  Anyone wealthy enough to play a major part in elections, be they unions, wealthy individuals, wealthy companies, political actions groups, or whatever else, can be viewed as spending lots of money to get politicians who will be friendly to their interests, often at the expense of those who didn't contribute to the politicians in question.


This is more or less how I feel.  Wisconsinites voted for republicans, and now have to live with the government they asked for, for better or worse.  I have no problem with the citizens protesting, nor even those (from both sides) pushing for recall elections.  But I don't like the precedent this sets for just walking out whenever you don't have the votes to get your way.

Going after political opponents with legislation isn't something I approve of in general.  If a democrat-controlled legislature tried to disband the NRA, say, it would be dirty politics as well.  But as dirty as it seems, it is within the rules, and the right way to address it should be to vote the bums out, as they say, not to try to use minority rule.

In reply to silveroak (msg #188):

You forgot this:



61 hours of debate and quick vote.  Boy, sounds like derailing democracy to me.  I don't see the "arranged distraction" and the Republicans had the majority anyway.  If a single Democrat senator returns to Wisconsin and they vote would that be wrong as well?  I don't think so.

How does that change the fact that a suprise vote seconds long was coordinated to eliminate voters on one side of the issue? The Health Care debate went on for months and Republicans decribed that as a rush because they weren'able to draw it out till the 2010 campaign season. And everyone voted there.
As for the distraction I got that from another news source I can't locate at the moment. In any case I thinkit is clear taht this 'fantasy' is not. And somebody owes me an apology.

Actually yes.  Democrats are going to run things the way they want when they are in power.  That is why so many voted against them this past election.  What the Republicans didn't do was hide from voting against it.  I certainly didn't like the way they did it nor the un-Constitutional abortion that resulted from it but hey, they won and they had the power.



Ummm... first, this isn't Union breaking.  The Unions remain but they don't have collective bargaining and the workers have the choice of belonging and paying dues.  That is not Union breaking, that is giving power to the worker.



And that is why we have a 3+ billion dollar deficit?  On what planet do you live where governments spend only what they bring in?  You can argue all you want but the balanced budget doesn't hold up.



But once again, large corporations can be hurt by the contributions they make.  The people can decide which stores they shop in and which products we buy.  We can't choose a different government.



Absolutely.  I enjoyed watching the protestors and the new civil tone they presented (that's sarcasm) and they definitely have the right to be there but the fleeing Dems are pissing off a great many Wisconsites.



This is not disbanding Unions.  It is allowing for local governments to work on contracts they can afford.  Madison is not Hurley or Ashland.  They have different economies and their bargaining powers should reflect that.

Note that the NRA is not a public sector Union.  If you work in the public sector you are vulnerable to the ebb and tide of taxpayer choices.  At least you should be.  If you don't like it, find a private sector job.

In reply to silveroak (msg #191):

The Republicans, who are in charge, took a vote after 61 hours of debate.  They had the vote and that was that.  Your charge of an "arranged distraction" is unproven and no apology is required.

As for the healthcare debate, sure it went on for months but when was that monstrous bill actually released?  Remember voting for it to find out what was in it?  But once again, that is how the Dems govern when they have power.  I don't recall you complaining about the process at the time.

Your charge that this was a fantasy was certainly debunked. And an appology is owed, but not expected.

My charge was that your perception of it was a fantasy.  That was clearly proven.  The motivations you attributed to it and the skullduggery you claimed to have occurred have not been proven in the least.

What are your thoughts on filibusters?  Do you consider them in the same light as leaving the state to prevent a vote?



Sounds like a semantic issue to me.  I think it's pretty clearly an attempt to severely weaken unions, and limit what rights they have, and what they're able to do.  If that's not "union breaking" to you, fair enough.  Call it "attacking the unions" or "going after the unions" or whatever, but can you show me where Walker promised that that was what he intended to do?


State governments are legally required to have balanced budgets.  Really, look it up.  The federal government isn't so required, and hence massive deficits year after year, but state governments can't.  Yes, there is a current deficit, but unlike the federal government, wisconsin has to do something about it, legally.


Unions can be hurt as well.  And we can choose a different government--its called voting.  Again, I agree that the fact that unions negotiate with politicians they may have helped elect is problematic, I just don't see how it's all that different from large businesses lobbying politicians they helped elect, or industries offering their picks for regulators to politicians they helped elect.  It's a legitimate problem, but it's not a union problem, its a campaign money/influence problem.


Yes, it's not a perfect analogy, but the basic idea is the same:  targeting political opponents with legislation is unseemly.  This, to me, seems pretty clearly a case of a politician trying to weaken a group that favors "the other side."  If it were really an open discussion about whether we should have public sector unions or not, I think it might be a worthwhile discussion.  But right now trying to pretend like it's a budget issue, when the unions have already agreed to the cuts to their pay but not the loss of bargaining rights, that seems like politics to me, not governance.


The senate version (which is the one that eventually passed) was released 5 days before the vote, I think.  That was for the "revised" version, I think.  The version without amendments was available earlier, I think.  Any senator that had any intention of finding out what was in the bill had more than enough opportunity, in my view.  I'm sure most didn't read the bill, but that's unfortunately fairly standard.

There are also ways to end filibusters.  All of that is acceptable because everyone is working within the rules.  Running away is akin to having a childish temper-tantrum.



Considering that Unions shouldn't be allowed in the public sector at all I don't think Walker is going far enough.

I attended some of his campaign stops where he spoke of putting Union benefits in line with the private sector and allowing local government more power to negotiate Union contracts into bring the budget deficit under control.  He also used the same tactics in Milwaukee.  If people expected him to promise to "bust the Unions" or "go after the Unions" then no he didn't use that language.  Was he supposed to considering that is not what he is doing?

When people say "I didn't know he was going to be Union buster" they are buying into the concept that that it is sole goal of repairing the state budget.



And Walker is doing that.  I know the legality but you also have to know the reality.



What service does a Union provide the taxpayers?  None.  They exist to feed themselves on taxpayer money.  A business can contribute the money it is given from the public but the public sector Unions contribute money they have already taken from the taxpayer.



You have yet to establish that this is targetting Unions and only Unions.  The budget repair bill covers a whole lot more than collective bargaining.  By the way, collective bargaining is not a protected "right".  It is the current state of things that is about to change.

As for the Unions bending over backwards to agree, new e-mails released show that the Walker <b>has</be> negotiated on key aspects of his union reforms:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/s...itics/117584003.html

And that the runaway Dems and their Union overlords are not as agreeable as they have told the media.  They are demanding total victory or nothing at all despite being in the minority.  I am sure they are disappointed with the release, because it exposes their absolutism and their refusal to abide by the results of an election.  Disgusting.



So five days was enough time to read 2500+ pages of legal documentation, understand the ramifications, and debate the merits of the bill?  Really?  We are still finding out, thanks to Pelosi, what is "in it" and what it is doing to the healthcare system.  Not to mention that if you have to give waivers to Unions, Corporations, and whole States it most likely is a turd.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:20, Wed 09 Mar 2011.

http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson02252011.html


not just underhanded- ILLEGAL!

In reply to silveroak (msg #198):

Where do you prove that:



Nice talking point but did any Democrat, at the time, raise the point of order?  Who has presented evidence that the vote was not accurate?

Not just a fantasy, but UNFOUNDED!

There was no opportunity to do so. The vote was opened and closed to fast to follow protocal. For all we know the fraud did happen and even more democrats were absent because the vote was held without any accountancy to ensure validity in a rush to push it through. Democracy isn't a game show where the person who hits the buzzer first wins.

This message was deleted by the player at 17:38, Thu 10 Mar 2011.

This really is an interesting situation. I wonder how many people are weighing in on it based on their personal political leanings, rather than who is actually behaving correctly. If we took out 'Democrat', 'Republican' and 'Unions', where would people fall?

It looks like group A has been voted into power, and group B is now a minority.

Was group A voted in on the platform of doing X? I don't know. It doesn't seem unreasonable. Is it really important? Is X violating anyone's rights? Is it oppressing a minority? I don't see anything which suggests action X is inherently wrong, illegal, or contrary to the wishes of the voters, so pushing it forward seems fine to me.

Group A has pushed to take a vote. Was there malfeasance? Maybe. It's not proven. Clearly we should either investigate, or just take another vote. This is in the grey area of 'maybe'.

Group B has decided to flee the state. Is this appropriate? It's literally dereliction of duty. I would tend to say that an individual who is given a job to be at a place and perform a function, and refuses to perform that function is violating the rules of his employment. Unless there's a serious moral issue with issue X which overrides such petty concerns, it would seem like group B is in the wrong. They aren't doing their jobs, and they're intentionally holding up the democratically established process.

If Walker is taking kick-backs is a completely different issue. He's not the entire house. His vote doesn't automatically win. Walker is also the democratically-elected governor. Unless he's actually violated the law somewhere (in which case, he should be investigated on those counts), what he does or does not do is a matter between him and his voters, not him and the other representatives.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I frankly dont' care. But as an outsider looking in, it just feels like violent partisanship at the expense of the state. I just hope it teaches some people that playing political parties like they're sports team and demonizing the other side is ultimately going to sink the entire ship, democrats and republicans both.

In reply to Falkus (msg #201):

Are you at all interested that Soros backs Democrats?  At least the Koch brothers made their money honestly and didn't destroy currencies to do so.

So no, I don't have a problem with the Koch brothers giving campaign donations to candidates who support libertarian causes.  $48,000 doesn't buy a govenor these days.

Update!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/s...itics/117656563.html

Looks like the state Senate removed the fiscal portion of the bill that requires the Dems and passed the modifications to the Unions separately.  And now the Dems come back today screaming about how Democracy has been insulted.  I wonder if they understand the irony of that statement.

Democracy isn't just about winners and losers, it's also about the ability t compromise. When one side has all the power and still uses tricks and manipulation to beat teh other side over the ehad with it's agenda instead of being willing to discuss teh situation, it *is* an insult to demoocracy.

In reply to silveroak (msg #205):

Yes, silveroak, I remember how angry you were when the Democrats used legislative tricks to pass Obamacare and cut Republicans out of the debate all together.  *crickets chirping*

The released emails show that Walker was trying to negotiate with Dems in good faith.  What the Dems were doing was stalling until their Union friends could work on PR.  When the minority says "my way or the highway" it is time to kick them aside.  Where do you actually see the runaway Dems negotiating?

Good job Walker!  Nice to see actual leadership.

What legislative tricks? They took a vote *in which everyone participated*, up front and honest after Republicans had been dragging feet for months. they called extra meetings to try and find common ground to cooperate when they already had all teh votes they needed to pass teh bill. they *bent over backwards* to try and include republicans in the process while the Republicans put their metaphorical fingers in their ears and chanted 'no, no, death panels, death panels'. The two events were polar opposite in terms of how the party with actual power behaved. Nothing the Democrats did took republicans by suprise, indeed teh Republicans were shouting ad complaining about how unfair it was *going* to be well before it was ever done.

In Athens winning admirals were all ordered to be executed by hemlock for not picking up survivors even though a vicious storm was coming and they could have lost many ships, democracy is rule by a mob. And they were in fact victorious in the battle so expected to be treated as heros. A Republic is democratic based on laws and various trigger safeguards so the majority can't always force its way. Its not perfect but seeing the lack of intelligence of the average American in matters of politics I prefer what we have.

Our governor in Florida is also unpopular with many but he is doing what he said he was going to do run the state like a business was the big one, he is doing that and people are suprised. Why? He shot down the high speed rail and I agreed with it after looking at all viewpoints and I was for it. But others just saw the $2.4 billion from the government and not was it going to be a good idea overall.

So is he doing what he said he was going to do in Wisconsin or not - if he is trying to keep his promises then he is honorably doing what is expected. If not then he is not. But why fault the leaders in power from just having them do what they promised to do?

In reply to silveroak (msg #207):

Nice revisionim.  The reason Obamacare was dragged out was due to the Democrats trying to get there own members to vote for it.  They didn't need a single Republican vote.  Remember how they had to buy the votes of their own members?  Remember how the House Dems were in bitter negotiations with Senate Dems?

Nice try but some of us actually paid attention to the process.  The Republicans had nothing to do with creating that bill.

I didn't say the Republicans had anything to do with the creation of that bil, what I said was that the Democrats could have pushed it through sooner but spent a lot of time *trying* to engage the Republicans and bring their point of view to the table, teh polar opposite of what happened in Wi where teh Republicans truncated debate and discsusion to force a quick vote to shut Democrats out of the process.

Democracy means everyone gets a voice, and a vote, not just those in power.

In reply to silveroak (msg #210):

Once again your memory of how Obamacare was enacted is... interesting.  The reason for the extended period to push through, and the attempt WAS made to push it through, was due to Democrat resistance.  It most certainly was NOT due to the wonderful Democrat leadership trying to talk to Republicans.  Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare.

A 61 hour debate is "truncated"?  Three weeks of negotiations with Dems to try to get them to do their jobs is "truncated"?  Walker was the only one trying to compromise.

In the Obamacare debate the Republicans voiced their opposition when they could.  They did not run and hide because they didn't like what they saw.  The Wisconsin Dems didn’t even show up to let that happen.  They chose to not participate and removed themselves from the debate.  The Republicans did not remove the Dems "voice".  The Dems "voice" could not be heard because they ran and hid in a hotel in Illinois.

Also, it is not really true that their voices were not heard.  That is all that I have been hearing on the radio and TV, not to mention outside the front door of one of my offices, for the last month.  The Unions have shipped in their best voices and even Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore have been playing the violins for the poor, underpaid (avg. salary $76,500) public sector workers of Wisconsin.  Indeed, how dare the governor try to prevent bus drivers from making six-figure salaries!

The people of Wisconsin voted for Walker to cut the spending and balance the budget.  He is doing what he said he would do.  You should also note that Federal employees do not have collective bargaining rights.  Are they oppressed by The Man?

This message was deleted by the player at 17:38, Thu 10 Mar 2011.

I agree that running away is a bit like a temper-tantrum, but I'm less convinced by the "filibusters are within the rules, so it's okay."  Are the rules themselves okay?  If the WI dems had a filibuster option instead of running out of state, I'm sure they would have taken it, but it would have stopped the majority all the same.  Would that have been better?  Or acceptable?  I'm not entirely sure, one way or the other.  Both are cases of minority rule, in a sense.  Or at least preventing majority rule.  Are there cases when that's justified?  When Mr. Smith went to washington (here I must admit I've not actually seen the film, so am just going on my limited pop culture understanding of it here) he shut down congress, and prevented any other business from taking place as long as he kept talking.  He's viewed as the hero in the film precisely because he shut down the governing process by not accepting majority rule.  Are we (or at least those who have seen the film) wrong to see him as a hero?  Should we instead view him as a tantrum-throwing sore loser?  Again, I'm not entirely sure.  My gut instinct is that there is a time and place for drawing a line in the sand and fighting tooth-and-nail, rules and manners be damned, but I feel politicians consider that time and place to be anytime they don't get their way these days.  How can we make sure there is a reasonable balance struck between not letting the majority run unhindered over anyone that disagrees with them, and well, making sure they can do so in order to have a functioning government?  I'm not sure, really.  Would be good to hear some suggestions.



Okay, so I'll ask one more time, and if I don't get a straight answer I'll just assume you don't have one:  do you have a link or other evidence backing up the claim that taking away union collective bargaining rights is "just what he said he would do?"  You were a bit harsh on silveroak for not being able to back up his claims, so it'd be nice if you could be just as careful back up yours, neh? ;)


No, I think they're saying that eliminating collective bargaining is a separate issue than fixing the budget.  Everyone seems to be on board with the idea of having union members pay more for their pensions and benefits.  What people don't agree with is that taking away union collective bargaining rights is related to the budget.  And, given that WI passed that yesterday by taking out all the parts related to the budget, so it wouldn't need a quorum, I think they have a pretty good case to make on that.


Okay, what are you saying the reality is?  I've said that states are required to have balanced budgets by law.  If you're saying that's not reality, let me know what is.


This is a false dichotomy.  The public and the taxpayers are the same people.  Saying corporations take money from "the public" and unions take it from "the taxpayer," isn't a useful distinction here.  Again, the fact that unions can influence elections and then negotiate with those elected is a problem.  But its more or less the same problem that large companies or wealthy individuals can influence elections, and then negotiate with those politicians for special treatment or to get their preferred agenda passed or the like.  Again, it's a problem, but its not one unique to unions.


The collective bargaining is the point that's holding things up, though.  Get rid of that part of the bill, and you'd be able to pass the rest, even if not everyone would agree on all the rest of it.  It's the collective bargaining that's the sticking point.  I agree that collective bargaining isn't a protected right, which is part of why I've said I don't like the method the dems have used in this case.  That said, though, going after is, in my view, a pretty clear attempt to target political opponents.  As I said before, it's a political move, not an act of governance, in my view.


Perhaps.  Are you willing to say that republicans trying to stop the healthcare reform were "demanding total victory despite being in the minority" and were "refusing to abide by the results of an election?"  Did you consider their action during the health care debate "disgusting?"  I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in the WI case, in fact I somewhat agree, though I wouldn't use as inflamatory descriptors, but I'm wondering if it's more driving by the fact that they're democrats, rather than driven by the fact that they're a minority trying to stop a majority from getting its way.


Possibly, but that's not what was needed in this case.  The 5 days was from the release of the amended version, which had about 300 odd extra pages, to the voting.  100 pages a day isn't particularly taxing reading, I've had to do as much many times in college.  And politicians have staff to read for them anyway!  But really, the issue is rather moot.  Politicians had all the time the needed to learn what was in the healthcare law.  That's not the same as saying the did learn what was in it, because most of them probably didn't.  But it wasn't for lack of time, it was for lack of having any intention of ever doing so.  If you want to claim republicans didn't actually know what was in the healthcare bill, feel free, but think through the implications of such a position before you make it. ;)


We, as in the voters, are still finding out, because the vast, vast majority of us can't be asked to read the bill.  I can't, I'll admit.  Like pretty much everyone else, I'm willing to let the few wonks willing to wade through it tell me what's in it.  The healthcare debate went on for months and months.  It wasn't rushed through, it dragged on and on and on, because the minority wanted to stop it however they could.  Very similar to what's going on in WI now, except that the filibuster rule meant republicans in the senate didn't have to run away to do it.

Certainly agree on that.


I read this today, and it got me thinking a bit, about what is a politicians duty, and whom do they owe it to?  Is there job to show up and vote?  Is it to represent everyone in their district, regardless of whether those people voted for them?  Is it to live up to campaign promises?  Is it to fight tooth and nail to stop something bad from happening their constituents?  To the people who elected them?  Not all of these things are can be done at once.

I'd think that far too many people these days feel (if not think) that the job of "their" politicians is to stop the others guys from getting their way.  This is, I'd argue, why Walker went after the unions in the first place, and why the dems were willing to flee the state to try to prevent it.  Governing seems to have been replaced with politicking in much of the US.  I've read articles saying that the number of people who would rather their representative take an uncompromising stand rather than forge a mutually agreeable compromise has increased significantly in the last few years.

I would argue this is at least in part due to our electoral system, which is a winner-take all, mostly two-party system.  Politicians of all stripes these days tend to run on a platform of things they're against.  They define themselves by who they oppose, and what they won't tolerate.  Elections tend to be viewed as "you need to vote for X in order to keep Y out!" rather than view X as an actually good candidate.  When we have this kind of oppositional/confrontational system, its only natural for politicians to get caught up in attacks on the other side when they're in power, and refusing to cooperate when they're in the minority.  More and more we voters are punishing, rather than rewarding, politicians who do the hard work of forging a compromising and getting the actual work of governing done.  There was lots of talk of "purity tests" in the last election, and many politicians faced challengers who claimed they were too willing to work with the other side.  The situation in WI seems a fairly natural consequence of this kind of system.  When the other side is viewed as evil and corrupt, it becomes an act of valor to shut down the government to stop them.  Trying to negotiate with them is viewed as an act of collaboration and encouragement of the horrible "other."  When partisanship wins elections, we have to expect partisanship after the elections.


Yes!

The filibuster allows a dissenting minority the ability to hold legislation up.  There are also rules for overturning a filibuster.  It matters not if these rules are good or if they are bad.  They are the rules and are subject to change if the legislators decide that change is needed.

But the rules are in place.  Running away from the accepted rules and the consequences of a lost election cycle are quite different than working within the accepted and agreed upon rules.  They threw out the manners and long time ago and are now reaping the benefits of throwing out the rules.



If you want a flat-out quote that he said he would save money by eliminating collective bargaining rights then no.  What he promised to do was balance the Wisconsin budget and put in place fiscal reponsibility.

My claim has been fully backed up as I will explain below.  Besides, there is a difference between Walker saying he will balancing the budget, he is, and how he will do it compared to accussing people of conspiracies.



Eliminating collective bargaining, as I have said before, will allow municipal governments to negotiate better contracts.  Most government workers are municipal workers.  I would say that this a huge part of balancing the budget of Wisconsin.

What they pulled from the bill was the refinancing portion which falls under the fiscal category.  What was left still partains to a balanced budget considering the money to be saved through having state workers give into their own pensions and help pay for their own healthcare coverage.

This "assault" is nothing of the kind.  Only 26 states have laws that grant collective-bargaining privileges to substantially all public employees.  One wonders how those poor state workers in the other 24 states survive.  It should be noted that Obama has sought to impose a two-year wage freeze on federal workers through the budget process. If the federal government had a bargaining law like the one Wisconsin has today, he would be unable to do that.



The reality is that they run deficits.  If those budgets are balanced then how can that be?



Wrong.  If you don't want to make a distinction between a taxpayer, someone forced by law to hand over money, and the public consumers, those who freely give their money for goods and services, then that is your problem, not mine.

The taxpayers can not freely choose to patronize a government depending on who is in it.  They have the choice to get goods and services from companies.  Unions buy government influence with taxpayer money.



Not any more.



In other words, let the minority get what they want through the tactics they have employed.  Gee, if only everyone would cave on their principles this whole government thingy would be so easy!

You may see it as a political move but it is also good governance over a state with a large deficit.  As I said above, this will help get Wisconsin's budget in line by giving the State and municipalities the ability to negotiate.



Did the Republicans run and hide?  Or did they stand and make their statements of disagreement?  Show me where the Republicans stopped the healthcare steamroller.



Which actions?



Wrong again.  If my representative left the state to avoid a vote I would sign a recall petition in a heartbeat.  You should also note that I voted for a Democrat to be my local representative.  I don't vote party lines, especially in local elections.  I have even bought her a beer.  So please, keep the psychoanalysis to the professionals.



They knew a great deal of what was in it.  What they didn't get was any say in it or any time to consider the ramifications it would have on healthcare.  A quick read may be good enough for you when restructuring healthcare but I would have preferred a more open consideration.

The fact that Obama is issuing waivers left and right to avoid the repercussions of his plan says more about the Democrats who actually created the bill then the ones who opposed it.



There were multiple versions of Obamacare leading up to the vote, the Senate and House version, the amendments, the reconcilliation process.  Things changed constantly.  You had Pelosi and Reid saying that this wasn't in the new version or that things had changed.  Five days for 2500+ pages.  Mince words all you wish but the final product was not debated at all.

Once again, describe the tactics used by Republicans to hold up the process.  Considering that they didn't need a single Republican vote to pass it and the fact that they had to payoff members of their own party to do so tells me that you can't provide a single one.  The Democrat Party owns Obamacare.

Sounds like we're on a different page on this, then.  I tend to think that rules should (but don't always do) reflect what is acceptable, but they don't determine what is acceptable.  In this case, we have two different sets of rules, one that allows a minority to hold up the majority, and one that doesn't.  To me, that doesn't mean minority rule is okay in one place in not the other--it's either okay or its not.  It may be allowed in one place but not the other, but that's a much less interesting question to me.  Sometimes the right thing to do is against the rules, and sometimes very wrong things are allowed by the rules.  I'm happy to agree that the WI dems didn't play by the rules of their situation, because they viewed the outcome more important than the rules (and I consider that problematic).  But should the rules have been different so they could have taken a principled stand without running away?  Or are systems that make that possible flawed?  I'm honestly not sure one way or the other, but I think its a deeper question then "did they break the rules or not?"


Okay, fair enough.  Do I get to call it a "fantasy" then? ;)  More seriously though, just want to remind us all that we all overstate things from time to time, and should aim to be forgiving when pointing out when someone else does so.


Because a budget is a projection into the future, which may not be accurate.  Also, many of the projected deficits are the "if we don't change what we're doing, we'll be short $X" kind, which is a bit different from the "we're going to spend $X more than we take in" kind.  The main difference being that the states are required, legally, to do something to react to deficits.  They can't just say "well, let's just do nothing and accept the shortfall," the way the federal government can.  So when a state government negotiates with unions, it can't just promise the moon and the stars and expect some future congress to deal with it, like the federal government can.  If they give something to unions, they have to come up with a way to pay for it.  Which means they do have incentive to not pay unions whatever unions want, just like private companies have incentive to keep employee wages down to maximize profit (which is what originally spun off this line of discussion).  In both cases, the employers have incentive to pay employees less.  In the private sector in order to maximize profits, in the public sector to avoid having to raise taxes or cut other spending (both things that politicians get punished for doing).


You don't think the public consists of taxpayers?  Paying taxes and buying a product are different, yes, but the people doing both of them are the same.  I am a taxpayer AND a member of the public.  You are too, and so is everyone.


Largely true, yes, though in the case of states, I suppose they could move to other states.  Not suggesting that they should have to, just noting that they do have a degree of choice.  Also, they get to vote, so can choose to elect a new government (provided enough of their neighbors agree with them).


Technically true, since union members are taxpayers, but more accurately, unions buy influence with union-member money.  It's money that belongs to the union members, not the (other) tax payers.  They get paid fair and square for the work they do, and they're free to do with their money as they please, no?  Just because they get paid by the government, I don't see any reason why they can't spend their money as freely as anyone else can.  Unions buy influence with union-member money, large corporations buy influence with corporate money, wealthy individuals buy influence with their own money.  As far as I'm concerned, when money is influencing politician's decisions, its a potential problem, regardless how someone earned their money to spend on influence.


Well, as long as you see the other side views it the exact same way: "let the majority get what they want through the tactics they have employed?  Gee, if everyone would cave on their principles so easily, this whole government thingy would be so easy!"  Both sides think that letting the other have their way is "caving."  Both sides think they are taking a principled stand.  If both sides think coming to a compromise is "caving," this kind of standoff is more or less inevitable.


It may be, but it's not really a near-term budget issue.  It's politics.  The government isn't going to save any money by not taking union dues out of union members paychecks, it's just going to make life more difficult for the unions.  The government isn't going to save any money by forcing unions to vote of whether they want to keep existing every year, it's just going to be a hassle for unions, and a way for union-opponents to break unions by joining a union just to vote against its continued existence.

But lets try this tack, since I don't imagine we're likely to get anywhere just arguing whether it is pure politics or not:  IF it were just an attack on a political rival, and it could be proven as such (say, some secretly recorded discussion between republicans saying "we need to break these unions because they're helping democrats get elected...how can we do it?"), would that change your view of it?  If it were purely politics, could we at least agree that it would be bad?  It seems unlikely that we'll agree if it is just a political attack, but can we at least agree on the basic idea that using the legislature to attack political opponents simply because they help opponents win isn't really what we should want our politicians to be doing?


No, they didn't run and hide, because they had the filibuster.  They didn't need to run and hide, they could just threaten to filibuster.  They didn't manage to stop it in the end, but they tried all they could to do so, no?



How about the list of silly amendments they added just to create absurd sounding votes, in hopes of derailing the senate-house match up process?
But more to the point, trying to force the dems to get 60 votes instead of just 51 to pass it?  Was that a case of a minority trying to reject the result of an election?  Or as long as it's "by the rules" it's okay?


Do you feel they actually had something positive to add to the discussion, or do you think they would have just tried to stall it out longer to defeat it?  If the former, I could see where you're coming from, but I honestly never got the impression that they had any intention of trying to make the bill better.  In fact, they tried to add amendments to make it worse, so that it would be more difficult to pass, if I recall.  They wanted to defeat it, not improvement, from what I saw of it.


The law certainly has many flaws, and isn't the one I'd have liked to have seen if it were purely up to me.  But that's democracy for you--sometimes a half-assed bill that can be passed is better than a good bill that has no chance of passing.  It's going to take quite a bit of tweaking and amending and adjusting over the years to get right, I think.  And we still have to do a lot more to really address the problem of spiraling medical expenses in general.  But it's a first step, at least, and I think it'll be better than doing nothing, which was the only other alternative anyone seemed to be considering.


Do you really feel it would have changed anyone's mind?  Debate is well and good, but I'm pretty sure everyone's mind was well made up by the time the vote came around.  They'd been debating the issues for months.  Pretty much everyone had made up their mind months before the final vote.


The filibuster is the main one.  Offering absurdist amendments to try to derail the sentate-to-house matching up process is another.  All within the rules, yes, but again, I'm not really the "the rules say we can do it, so it makes it okay" type.


No disagreement there.


Getting back to the original issue that spun off this whole WI discussion, what are you views on Angle's "2nd amendment solutions" comments?

I think the degree of 'blocking the process' should be proportional to the importance and sensitivity of the subject being examined.

Democracy literally is rule by the majority (contrary to silveroak's suggestion). Fortunately, the US is set up such that the minority generally gets SOME level of voice. Because a minority can simply derail the process and mire the government forever, fighting on every issue is unethical. On some minor issues you just need to let things move along, even if it's not in your favor.

Filibustering is rude and wasteful, but certainly justified if it's a major issue (like health care, or I suppose, government unions). This is peoples' livelihoods, so a certain amount of cost and inconvenience is justified to see that the minority doesn't get smashed.

Walking out is actively violating the rules of politics. IMO, it's just about the most destructive thing a politician can do. It's breaking the agreed upon rules, cutting communication, and preventing all work. It's the last step before sending armed men to enforce the will of the people. It's justified in some cases (major moral issues like slavery or secession of states), but really it should be interpreted as either voluntarily retracting from the political process or inviting armed response.

Is the unions that huge of an issue? I don't know. I guess. But if it is that big of an issue, I wouldn't have complaints of the fleeing representatives were collected and held in prison. I can't flee any of my government duties because I disagree with how things are run (try running from jury duty because you disagree with how the judicial system works).

I'd generally agree with this.  The trouble, though, is that almost every issue is of utmost importance to someone.  Does anyone have any idea of how to enforce the idea the minority scuppering the majority rules system only in extreme cases?  Depending on the goodwill and manners of politicians doesn't seem to work anymore (if it ever did).  Do we just accept that every issue should require a super majority?  Do we do away with ways for minorities to stop majorities?  Is there any practical method of getting a happy medium?


I'm not a fan of it either, but I wouldn't call it the most destructive thing a politician can do.  Really, it's not any different, in my view than what filibusters used to be, when people stood up and just talked for days at a time, preventing any other discussion and any other work from getting done.  It's basically saying "I will not budge on this issue, and I'm willing to stop all other business if that's the only way to stop it from happening."  If the WI dems had any other method of stopping the bill from passing without having the flee the state, I would guess they would have taken it.  Basically, it comes down to whether we feel a large minority should have the power to stop a majority in serious situations?  If we do, then it seems like we either need to give them that power, or expect this kind of thing.  If we don't, do we just accept majorities going after political opponents through legislation whenever power changes hands?  I'm not really sure, to be honest.  It's all very frustrating.


I really wouldn't put it near to armed action.  Again, if it's the only option of the minority to stop something, and we think minorities should be able to stop action in extreme cases, then we have to accept it.  If we don't, think minorities should ever have the right to stop majorities, it seems like we should get rid of the filibuster and all similar rules, and just go to a parlimentary system where the majority do all the governing and the minority just sit in the back and complain but have basically no power.  Is there any middle ground between those two options?  I'm hoping so, but I don't know what it is.

Democracy is litterally rule by the people (Demos). The form it takes certainly varries, and generally does include some form of electorla system, but you can certainly have elctions without democracy- a vote taken amongst a trimverate can have majority rules without being democratic. What sets a democracy apart is universal capability to participate.

As for rules, teh Wi rules indicated that there should be enough time to document who was not in the chambers for teh vote, and that was not done. Hence the Republican majority broke the rules, and the law, in the way they conducted the vote. There is no law stating that legislators must remain in the state.

And a represenative's job is to represent, not to sit in a chair and push buttons. That is, at least in their own view, what the Democrats are doing. It was also, to be fair, what the republicans were doing durring the healthcare reform debate, though I think they would have better represented their constutuants in that case by participating. In this case democratic participation has already been shut out by the Republican's methodology, so not showing up is the best choice they feel they have to represent their constituants. Considering teh ammount of demonstrated support for tehm it would seem that at least a fair umber of their constituants agree.

(Tycho, I think you misquoted there.)



Extreme as in 'willing to go to prison'? In general, I'd say the more extreme YOU think it is, the more you should be willing to risk. If it's truly extreme, you should be willing to risk your own freedom.




It's eliminating any opportunity of discussion with no method of remediation. It is completely eliminating any opportunity for further diplomacy. If they continue on that course, the other party either needs to drop whatever they were doing, or send out the police.



Bear in mind, I consider 'sending the police' to be armed action - it's sending men with guns to your house to settle things.

The Republicans have already sent the police looking for the missing democrats, and the remaining democrat in session has pointed out that the behavior of the Republicans was clearly illegal/ It will be interesting if he files that in court, or if any union files in court on the basis that the vote was taken illegally. Communications has broken down completely, and it does appear to be grounded in Republicans denyong democrats a place at the table.
Personally I think part of the problem here is hyperbole escallation and gullibility. A lot of the current republicans get tehri world view from fox News which, to be blunt about it, lies. It has made teh Democrats out to be power mongers who will stoop to anything to force through legislation and as a result the Republicans entering office this year tend to feel like that is where the bar has been set.
So ultimately, yes, I blame Glen Beck. When you start convincing people that they are facing the devil you should be prepared for a Holy War.

If it's clearly illegal, than he should take them to court. If he refuses to take it to court, that tells me he might just be talking out of his behind. That's a pretty common behavior of politicians (equally on both sides).



But here's the thing, it's not just Fox News. Huffington Post does it too. Heck, my local paper will say a democrat 'resigned' and a republican was 'forced out'.

The media don't hold themselves to any standard, and we don't hold them to one either. We naturally like the media which agrees with our pre-existing worldviews. It's a psychological fact. But rather than do the responsible thing and seek out the news that maybe makes us uncomfortable, we shut it out. We say "(Fox News/Huffington Post/Washington Post/whatever) you are giving me more evidence for what I already believe to be true. Please keep feeding these walls to keep my worldview secure and ensconced." WE pay them to lie to us. Modern media has perhaps exacerbated things in that, before, you had to accept the local news only, whether their bias agreed or disagreed with yours. Now I can get 24 hour news, one channel in each ear, and still never choose a channel which provides anything which might upset how I think the world should look.

In reply to silveroak (msg #221):

Don't have time today to answer the rational questions posed to me but silveroak's response requires a response.

His point is that he blames Fox News and Glenn Beck.

Those here who were around during Reagan know that the left considered him to be the devil.  Those who lived during the Bush years know that the left considered him to be the devil.  The right has been demonized by the media for decades but now, because of one cable news station and a talking head, everything is going to hell in a handbasket.

I have spent weeks listening to, and seeing, protesters calling Republicans Nazis and comparing Walker to Hitler, Mubarak, and Stalin.  The Republicans are facing death threats on a daily basis and silveroak has the gall to question the rational nature of Republicans.  Nice.

So on that note, I will step out of this conversation as it has just jumped the shark.  Thank you silveroak for bringing it down a notch.

Ack, yes, sorry about that.  Too much paste, not enough cut!


I can more or less agree with that.  I wouldn't say it's an either/or (ie, either you risk prison, or its not important), but if you're saying the dems should be willing to go to prison over this, I can see the argument.


I disagree on that somewhat.  Republicans could still negotiate and discuss with the dems while the dems are out of state, if either side had any real interest in doing so.  What it stopped was ending discussion and actually making a decision.  I'd say its more drawing out diplomacy indefinitely, and preventing action, rather than eliminating diplomacy.  Not defending it, per se, just saying that I wouldn't describe it that way.


Okay, if sending the police is what you meant, then I can probably agree.  I was thinking more of the "start shootin'!" kind of armed action.

There is a major difference between some unknown ranting on the internet and someone with a syndicated show being promoted as a news provider/analyst and reaching millions. The second has an appeal to authority and a broader audience (and FYI the "I blame Beck" comment was somewhat tongue in cheek- while I think he may be the prime example of what is wrong I do not hold him solely responsible) The idea that any loon dug up from anywhere can eb compared to someone who is put in that kind of position of authority is as flawed a reasoning as when he is drawing connections betwen every Democrat who catches his attention and Al Queida, trying to intimate that the Democratic party is nothing but a front for Americas enemies, which is much more sever that simply saying 'they are Evil in whatever incarnate form I chose to represent it' because f they are evil and Patriotic (Bush) they can still do the country some good, but if they are all sleeper agents out to destroy the country that has far worse implications.

Don't think I disagree. I don't watch Glenn Beck, but if my understanding of the show is correct, it's certainly a source of harm. My point though is that it's not limited to Fox News. We see the same behavior on the Huffington Post (which is certainly not 'unknown ranting on the Internet') and in all three of the local papers in my area, to one degree or another.

And certainly, Glenn Beck is responsible for his actions, and yes, maybe he's a terrible person. But if you took him away, there would be someone new to fill that spot almost immediately. So I don't BLAME Glenn Beck for the damage we're seeing. I blame us, the viewers. I blame... I don't know anyone who watches Glenn Beck, but I do blame them for creating an environment where it's better to tell half-truths. I blame evilkate for supporting the Huffington Post without tempering it with other sources too.

I will give you also that liberal sources seem to be a lot more discrete with their biases. Beck can say "dem Smith is the new Sadam Hussein' and his audience will accept it. Liberal sources are more likely to have every democrat standing up for the minority and resigning magnamonously, while every republican is blocking legislation and forced out. But the result is the same - "they" are bad, anti-democratic, self-serving, faceless monsters who must be opposed based on their allegiance, rather than their ideals.

There is however again a large difference between "Democrats resign while Republicans are forced out" and "Democrats are in the pocket of Americas enemies and are out to destroy the contry and enslave your children" Yes there is bias on each side, but that does not mean that all bias is equal.

They are not equal, but is one less destructive?

(The answer, of course, depends on the audience. You and I see the second headline and laugh - it's stupid. We see the first and don't ever question it - they're bad guys who need to be run out of town.)

In reply to katisara (msg #226):

I went to a log cabin in WV over Christmas with a friend and his friend.  His friend is an economics writer for Huffington Post.  The HuffPo guy and I spent most of the trip talking economics and politics.  For the most part, it was fun, but when I tried to suggest that the growing deficit might actually be a problem, he got upset with me.  He defended it by saying that we can't admit any of the positions on the Right have merit because it strengthens their message.

That to me is the biggest problem of partisanship, or bias if you prefer.  I actually think the growing deficit is a serious problem.  I just think the causes and potential solutions are different than, for example, Mitch McConnell does.  So yes, HuffPo probably does have bias.  At least we have Factcheck.

The other side of that is that if one side actually becomes more extreem they can always talk about their 'opposite' being equally extreem because of the reaction their own actions have engendered. How, hypothetically and only as an example of an extreemist position, do you moderately oppose adolph Hitler? A lot of Germans actually tried, and got overwhelmed by the tide of Nazis. On the other hand durring teh same period anyoen who stood up to vehemantly was made into a caricature of teh enemy Hitler was running against. And of course just because Hitler was arround didn't make Stalin a figment of the imagination, and Communism was the threat which outlasted the Nazis. (and before we get into the whole 'they were really the same thing' debate again Russia fought Germany, so interms of teh global-political landscape understood by the masses at the time I think it is safe to call them enemies.)

Barring the fact that Hitler likely had an undiagnosed psychological condition, and therefore, objectively, may have been in need of special care...

You address the ideas, not the individual. There's nothing inherently wrong with Hitler. If you went out drinking with him, that wouldn't make you a bad person. If he invented a better sandwich, there's nothing wrong with using it. However, when he starts talking about reclaiming his country from another racial group, then you can address those arguments directly.

Is it justified to attack Hitler's character in order to stop his arguments? Sure. But it's also justified to destroy the entire nation of Germany to stop THOSE arguments. If the Republican party is at the point where we're justified in destroying the entire nation to stop them, then attacking them based on partisanship seems a reasonable trade off. There's nothing left for you to salvage. But unless you're at that 'Civil War' stage, attacking based on party affiliation is simply too expensive to make into a regular activity.

The remainder of your post seems to be describing why what Hitler was doing was wrong, and I'd agree. In fact, once a political entity is setting up their enemies as caricatures and attacking them like that (like we see BOTH sides doing now), that is a warning sign that they are willing to sacrifice democracy and honesty to get their way - and should be shut down solely on principle.

The question also exists of perception versus reality.
Durring Hitler's rise to power he caricatured certain groups to make them into convenient targets to fuel his rise to power. Meanwhile those who opposed Hitler made a similar spectacle of him. To many 'on the ground' at the time the difference between teh two could seem non existant if you didn't get further into each and find out what they were about. Indeed even many of those who opposed Hitler were a bit of teh caricature he portrayed of them, in some cases being driven to embrace what they saw as an extreem opposite idealogy in order to oppose what they saw a s a great evil. By this however they also justified greater extreemism from those who supported the Nazis who reacted to what they saw as the extreemism of Communism.

So how does that apply today? It seems to me that the first responsibility of either party is to eliminate rather than encourage it's own extreemists. At the same time you can't completely silence them. Where I see the difference is in this- for the left *today* (not 20 years ago) those who are in positions of power and authority appear (to me at least) to be making an effort to keep the dialogue moderate. Certainly there are things you can find on teh internet or comments by individuals which do not measure up to this, but as a general practice this seems to be the case. Meanwhile 'the right' seems to be (currently) all about whipping it's base into a frenzy and giving a voice to teh most extreem elements of their party.

Compare Fox News not simply to whatever you might find on teh internet but to what is on MSNBC. Compare quotes of senators to senators, congressmen to congressmen, and state represenatives to state represenatives and it looks to me like there is a clear 'frontrunner' in the effort to bring the level of conversation down, to appeal to the baser side of human nature and to create the image of the other party as something worth destroying the country over. Indeed many canidates on teh right during the last election cycle spoke of 'second amendment solutions' if they lost. I don't believe any Democrats have come nearly so close in advocating the use of violence in the face of political defeat.

So if I call certain people on the right, such as Glenn Beck, traitors in principle if not in fact, it is because that is what I observe of his behavior, not as a matter of hyperbole. It certainly does not apply to everyone on the right, and it is not worth destroying our democracy over. Hopefully however being able to recognize this veneom for what it is might help to preserve our democracy from those so concerned with the power of their own idealogy that they would (I believe) sacrifice the welfare and principles of this country to achieve it.

Just spotted this over on another forum, and had to mention it here:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/ne...54-001cc4c002e0.html

"The administration of Gov. Scott Walker hired the 27-year-old son of a veteran lobbyist then promoted him to an $81,500-per-year job overseeing environmental and regulatory matters and dozens of employees, despite his having no college degree and little management experience"

Oh, and two drunk driving convictions.

Good to know that Walker's got his eye on the State budget, eh? Need a firm hand to trim all that waste and excess.

And now, Falkus away! Woob woob woob!
This message was last edited by the player at 02:35, Tue 05 Apr 2011.

In reply to Falkus (msg #233):

So?  Does this take the limelight off the thug tactics Unions are employing in Madison?  Don't think so.

On a side note, the story says that this person is in charge of a group that:



When I was a Industrial Hygienist (Hazardous Waste Inspector) at age 23 I was making around 36K/year and only had a high school degree.  I was in school to get my degree although I wondered why since I was making huge money, or so I thought.  We did work on underground storage tanks, asbestos, lead, etc. and all one really needs is proper training.  By proper training I mean 40+ hours depending on the type of material and situation you are dealing with.

So I have no problem with him in that position considering it seems like a valid position to have.  Has he made any mistakes in his job that prove incompetence?

Also: DUIs.  Should a person be barred from employment over a DUI?  You throw it out there like it is some juicy piece of gossip that should ruin this dude's life.

Thug tactics? Who has been physically threatened? Or is this another Republican "non factual statement"?

Doing work up on the square I can attest to the thug tactics but I am sure that means absolutely nothing to you.  So here are some links for you to check out.  I could link more but I am sure that would be a waste of time.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2...st-althouse-and.html

http://www.postcrescent.com/ar...onsin-state-senators

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117738098.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...sts-ammunition_N.htm

http://www.wisn.com/r/27196190/detail.html

http://host.madison.com/wsj/ne...4f-001cc4c002e0.html

http://biggovernment.com/jjmno...m-call-for-civility/

Here is a nice letter to Wisconsin businesses:

http://www.thewheelerreport.co...11/0310/0310wppa.pdf

So yeah, government officials having to cancel town halls, government officials having their houses vandalized, government officials having to take tunnels out of the capital, government officials having to increase security details, Unions threatening local businesses, Union members sending death threats to Republican supporters, Union members sending threatening emails and holding threatening signs, etc.  You know, things you would be wetting yourself over if the Tea Party engaged in it.

So no, no "non-factual statements".  I leave that to you and the Kos Kids.  This is just something that is not reported by the liberal media and those sites you frequent.  Most likely the very same ones who called for "civility" and attempted to link the actions of a madman to Republicans and the Tea Party.

Do not worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to denounce the actions of these thugs and criminals.  I am sure this is what the new "civility" you were ranting about looks like.

Don't have time to read through the all links just now, but even without reading them, I'm happy to say that violence, threats of violence, intimidation, etc. are all unacceptable.  Some of the stuff I've read about so far (death threats against politicians in particular) has been indefensible, and I'm more than happy to say that those committing such acts are wrong for doing so, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

This one is athreat to hang out as near to houses as legally permissable posted by one individual to a blog. Not a threat of violence... will get to the others...


This one is again a lone individual but really closer to being terorist in nature than thugish.


Again, terrorist more than thugish, one individual, and since we don't have a name it could well be the same individual mentioned above.


This certainly qualifies as thugish but there is no way to know if the person who brought teh amunition supports the protestors or was planning to shoot at the protestors. Or is the ammunition were left simply to create a scare (which would still be thugish) and if so by which side.


This is one prank call, admittedly thuggish in nature, though there is a certain irony to the tea pary complaining of thugish tactics after the letters on bricks writing campaign they spurred after the passing of teh health care reform bill.


This certainly qualifies as thugish, though my impression from the article was that while it certainly seems linked in terms of the issue it did seem to be occuring at a different geographic location than the capital.

This is largely a compilation of what you have already posted plus some reports of vandilism.

A threat of boycott is far from thugishness.

Finally, not to support the violence, but as food for thought, my father (a very ardent republican) was often fond of quoting to be from Benjamin Franklin, in answering his critics who claimed that freedom of the press was too wide open and potentially destabilizing "The freedom of the press will always be held in check by teh freedom of the cudgel"
American democracy is based on a ballance between competition and cooperation. When getting into office results in an attitude of "we won and to the victor go teh spoils" it will only serve to reveal just how much tension is held in check by thet system of ballances. When you take dynamite to public policy there will be blowback, and anyone who really thought they could waltz into office and simply blast away at the underlying principles that one way or another teh majority of tehir citizens have lived by without this kind of reaction should not be in office, not because their ideology is wrong but because it is a bad idea for anyone that delusional to hold office. Generally I have not been a big fan of unions, but there are some places where they are appropriate, and dealing with a monopoly employer like teh government is one of those circumstances.
You can't simultaneously call for revolution then cry about the bloodshed.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:48, Wed 13 Apr 2011.

In reply to silveroak (msg #238):

Excellent dancing.  I wonder when you will get to the part about you being wrong in stating that such thuggery was a "Republican non-factual statement".  Or are you going to stick with writing off union members who commit crimes as "lone individuals" and deeming actions to be more "terrorist" than "thuggish"?  You seem to be able to remove crimes involved in the protest of the Budget Repair Bill by stating that it wasn't close to the capital.  Amazing.

As I said before, this is an excellent showcase of the real reason behind the leftist and Democrat call for a new "civility": the muzzling of dissent to liberal policies and liberal politicians.  When leftist hate and leftist death threats rear their head I can expect an awesome silence from the ones who were screaming the loudest at the imagined "crimes" of the Tea Party.  You certainly don't dissappoint.

Edit to your edit:

So you do, in fact, find justification in Union and leftist violence, vandalism, and thuggery.  So much for that wonderful "civility" you thought was oh so important.  You keep proving me right.



Then clearly the Democrats and Obama should not be in office.  "I won" is one of his trademarks.  I am sure you stood up for the Tea Party's right to protest against those very politicians who wished to "blast away" at our healthcare and the economy.  Oh wait, you didn't.  But at least the Tea Party protests were far more civil than these clowns act.

And then you write this:



You do know that Wisconsin's law only conforms to how the Federal government treats its workers right?  You probably don't since you seem to be drinking the Union kool-aid pretty heavily.  Federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights either.  Oh how they are oppressed!

But take a look at your ridiculous quote: "monopoly employer".  I hate to break it to you but when the government deals with the Unions it is the taxpayers who get screwed.  Why would any poltician, espeacially a Democrat, not give the Unions any sweetheart deal it desires?  Just raise taxes on the ones who actually produce wealth and funnel it to the Unions who, in turn, funnel money to the politician who provides it.  Quite a deal for the politician and the Union and it is the taxpayer who gets the shaft.

I would take a look at the benefits and pay scales of government employees and tell me they are somehow oppressed.  This is why Unions should be banned for government employees.  They are unjust and corrupt the system.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:57, Thu 14 Apr 2011.

<moderator post>
Tlaloc, please feel entirely free to disagree strongly with what silveroak has said, and offer counter arguments, etc.  Do not feel free, however, to make personal comments about silveroak.  Please keep the discussion about the topic, not about each other.  Most of your post is fine, but the last line is unnecessary.  Please have a look at the forum constitution for more info, or send me a PM if this isn't clear.  Thanks!
</moderator post>

In reply to Tycho (msg #240):

PM

I look at what you wrote and not one word of it seems to be directed towards what iw rote, only towards some straw man of "the left"
I did not say that violence is acceptable, I am saying it is predictable and if the Wisconsin republicans are trully shocked by it then it simply demonstrates their utter incompetance.
And your assertiion initially seemed to be that the protestors at the capital were engaged in thuggery - nothing you posted supports that claim except by guilt by association, and the association is assumed by you, not proven.
As to the post Health Care thuggery by tea Partiers that is well documented, with the only defense being given todate being that it was not organized by anyone, a claim which pretty well defines the Tea Party to the point that it maintains no method of organization except through demogogory, and the demogogues called for violence, and lo there was violence. When one has benefitted from the trheat of violence in politics crying foul when it is turned arround is disengenuous at best. Again I do not say that teh vilence is justified, but the conservative response is simply pathetic.
And I did not claim that Wisconsin was abusing it's employees, and as to their pay scale the union has agreed to ever reduction proposed, so that would seem to be a non-issue. What I said is that the government is a monopoly employer. Unless you can point to another government that these employees can go work for in the area I think that point is self evident.

You started this by calling me a liar for using the term "thug" in regards to the actions of Union members and the leftist protestors in Wisconsin.  I proved that those tactics did indeed occur to which you responded by saying that thuggery didn't occur because you don't define thuggery as death threats, vandalism, and violence.  You also go further and say that such tactics are to be expected and that proof of incompetence is to be found in being shocked by being the victim of those tactics.

Sorry to give a play by play but you don't seem to be following along.

I do agree that Wisconsin Republicans should have expected death threats and vandalism.  Considering that they were taking on the Unions.  Death threats and thuggery are valid in their play book and should be expected.

I think the major point you make is that you have completely abandoned your position on "civility".  Like I said, you keep proving me right.



So Union members giving death threats is "guilt by association"?  Wow.  Your standards of proof seem far lower for Union members than Tea Partiers.



And yet you provide none.  Also, please provide your definition of "thuggery" so I can see the difference between the supposed Tea Party thuggery and the actual documented Union thuggery.



Whereas the Unions shipped in thugs from Chicago, Rockford, and Milwaukee into Madison.  They handed out the t-shirts and signs.  This was an organized and totally astro-turfed protest unlike Tea Party rallies.  Hard to believe one would associate the violence and vandalism of protesters with the Unions that shipped them in.

Another defense is that death threats, vandalism, and thuggery have not happened at Tea Party rallies.



Do you mean violence as when the SEIU thugs, Union boys, beat up the black Tea Partier?  Please show me the violence.



Who benefitted and how?  It is easy to type and much harder to provide proof.



And the silence of those ranting about "civility" is deafening.  As I said before, the movement for civil discourse was about censoring political speech you didn't like.  How dare the victims of politically motivated violence and hate speak out against it!



People choose to enter government employment and a monopoly only applies to businesses so your term is useless.  Government Unions do not sit across the table from their actual employers, the taxpayers and voters.  The tax payers and voters are the ones who have no representation at the table.  The people of Wisconsin voted in a Governor who promised to bring back fiscal responsibility.  As employees of the voters the workers should abide by that vote or seek work in the private sector.

The bill was not just about having Union members, *gasp*, pay into their pension funds and shoulder a bare minimum of their insurance costs.  It was also about local governments being able to negotiate wages and benefits that are more in line with local government budgets.  How draconian!  I would say if you are going to comment on this bill you should at least know what is being debated.

This would seem to be a good example of how unreliable this sort of thing is. I have no question that someone did this stuff, this behavior is thuggish (or even terrorism), and that it's attached to this movement. But I would also have to agree that the evidence it is in fact Unions or their appointed representives engaging in it is circumstantial.

And yes, this is like how the media has treated the Tea Party. You can't take one guy at a Tea Party Rally and say 'look at how bad the Tea Party is!' The organization is not responsible for the actions of individuals who claim to share that philosophy. I'm not a fan of unions, and the idea of a union for government employees sort of boggles my mind, but I can't claim the unions are responsible for this behavior without a clear path of evidence.

In reply to katisara (msg #244):

Would not the evidence be that these are Union members and this whole issue revolves around collective bargaining rights and benefits for Unions?  These death threats, vandalism, and thuggery are the direct result of Unions protesting the Budget Repair Bill.

Please supply some other reasons for these acts if you don't believe these to be Union motivated.  Considering the long history of Union thuggery and their use of these tactics, along with support from Union leaders, I would say it is a farther leap NOT to connect them to the Unions.

There's a difference between 'jerks acting irresponsibly because they're upset about a particular cause' and 'an organization intentionally arranging for illegal acts to further a political ends'. If you're going to say a random guy with a union card making angry phone calls represents the unions, it's fair to say the random guy at the tea party convention shouting Obama is a monkey represents the entire tea party.

I think you are agaion majorly misreading my posts:

you stated


to which I replied


Which is *not* calling you a liar, but questioning the validity of the language you used. Considering that some of the sources you site threatened nothing more than boycotts I would say that alot of it is 'non factual statements' though some of what you sited is valid, and I acknowledged those points.

i have *not* abandoned my position that teh violence is unconciounable, but when it *is* being decried by those in positions of authority, has never been called for by those in authority positions within the unions, and those unions do have a power structure of authority that those emplyoying those tactics are clearly operating outside of then it is disengenuous to claim it is the unions using those tactics.

To put it another way - a preacher in Florida burned copies of the Koran, and the US government defended his right to do so if not the wisdom of his doing so. Does that mean the US government is burning Korans? Clearly not. In this case the unions are *opposing* violence, where in earlier cases certain people claiming leadership within the Tea Party have made calls for violence which were headed.

Now if we can abandon the hysterics of "anything other than a complete outrage is a defense of violence" position you seem to have employed, I have not said that the violence is valid here, but I think people who percieve themselves as under attack by the government are likely to react outside the structures of civility, regardless of what party they might normally be affiliated with.

As for the long history of union thuggery keep in mind it was largely in response to their opponents hiring Pinkerton agents to fire upon peacefull demonstrations.

What I *am* saying is that the position of "we can threaten violence but you can't" which seems to be the message of the Tea Party Republicans 8will* result in violence from both sides, and it is unreasonable to not expect those you try and opress from using violence to defend themselves when you threaten them with violence. Which whtehr you believ it is valid or not *is* the image of the tea party that many people have.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:25, Thu 14 Apr 2011.

In reply to katisara (msg #246):

Yes.  It is hard to believe that Unions would endorse violent behaviour considering how morally and ethically they have been run in the past.

Sarcasm aside, Trumpka, who made an appearance in Madison, was once president of United Mine Workers.  He told his Union followers to to "kick the shit out of every last one of ‘em" in regards to "scab" laborers.  Under his reign one of those "scabs", Eddie York, was shot in the back of the head and the police, who were rushing to save Eddie York's life, were pelted with rocks.  Trumpka said about York, "I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’relikely to get burned. That doesn’t mean I’m threatening to burn you.  That just means if you strike the match, and you put your finger in it
common sense will tell you it’ll burn your finger."

Hard to believe such a wonderful man would create an environment of hate and violence.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that Unions have no history in organized crime.

On the other hand it was Bank of america who recently got caught hiring a hacker to go after information Jullian assange had about an unnamed US bank being involved in corruption and illegal international activities.
And Koch Industries began it's forays in politics supporting Joseph McCarthy, and now supports the governor trying to bust teh unions.
Point being neither side has clean hands if you want to start the finger pointing.

In reply to silveroak (msg #247):

Ah, the wonders of avoidance.

I don't see the proof of Tea Party violence nor does your post address your stated belief in earlier posts that the Republicans are getting what they deserve for messing with Unions.

I do like the Pinkerton reference.  It made me laugh.  I am sure the Unions delved into organized crime and continued their thuggish ways long after those days in remembrance of those Pinkertons.  You claim to hate violence but you sure to some excellent acrobatics to explain it away.

In reply to silveroak (msg #249):

Bank of America?  So what?

Koch?  Oh yes, those evil Libertarian boogey men.  By the way, McCarthy was pretty much right about Communist infiltrators in government.  Venona proved him to be spot on in several cases.  But that is neither here nor there.  We can debate your liberal demons later.

Your point falls flat considering you can't seem to show me all the violence, death threats, and vandalism caused by Tea Partiers.

So are you saying that Trumpka either ordered violence at Madison, or was even condoning such violence? Do you have evidence?

You can't say 'they did this action then, so CLEARLY they're doing it now'. It doesn't work that way. Like I said, I'm no friend of the unions. I think they're in the wrong here. But the claims you're making are simply unsupported.

In reply to katisara (msg #252):

He has a history of turning a blind eye to violence and ordering violence upon non-Union workers.  Combine that with a well documented history of Union violence (Pinkerton induced of course) and Union members vandalizing and threatening death to political opponents and it doesn't take much to realized there is a culture of violence inherent in the Unions.

What has happened in Wisconsin is Union thuggery.  Pure and simple.  Amazing that you believe the death threats, vandalism, and thug behavior is coincidental to the political debate over Union collective bargaining.  Does this level of violence and hate occur during debates on raising the gas tax?  Does it occur during debates about creating light rail between Madison and Milwaukee?  It does not.

So yes, I CAN say that they did it before, they are doing it now, and they will do it again.  These tactics of fear have worked for the Unions for decades.  Why would they abandon them?  Someone will always justify it somehow as we have seen.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:10, Thu 14 Apr 2011.

The fact that there were communist infiltrators in the American Government doesn't make McCarthy spot on any more than the fact there were Communists in germany made Hitler spot n. the fact that some small threat existed does not validate teh vast overreach and violation of what it means to be American that McCarthy engaged in utelising that threat as a bogeyman. It was at best a gross over reaction and attrocious judgement, at worst a cynical ploy and grab for power utelizing teh fears of teh American people. I'm sure teh millions of innocent people whose lives were destroyed by Sen. McCarthy feel it is completely justified because there were a handfull of actual communist infiltrators in the US governemnt.

But back to the current day again you have misrepresented what i have said. I do not abhor violence, what I said is that I do not believe it is justified in this case. Certainly there are cases where it is justified, such as the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm sorry if the ideas I am presenting are too complex to fit into teh overly simplified 'evil left wing agenda' which typifies a Fox news broadcast, but I would appreciate you adressing what i do say and not teh straw man who is your favorite target.

What has happened in Wisconsin is far from either pure or simple. The organized protests in teh capital have been overwhelmingly peacefull though obviously they have caused some considerable security breaches at the same time. at it's most fundamental level what has occured is a breakdown in teh tradition of compromise which enables our government to function despite radically different viewpoints being represented. And that has, by it's nature, impared the function of that government and raised a certain degree of anarchy, into which people whose tendancies are towards violence which are nromally restrained by civility and law have become more bold.

As to documentation of tea party violence we have already been over that for 7 rounds and teh evidence already offered is, in my opinion, stronger than that you have offered against the unions in what reduced to two points - those who were actively involved *at the time* in calling for violence were recognized, to such a degree that such a degree as it is possible, as being authorities within the Tea Party, and secondarilly because tehre was a lack of an available clear cur authority decrying the violence that could be said to represent the Tea party.

as for the situation in Wisconsin yes there is thuggery present, though more subtle forms of thread even seem to predominate over thuggery, but it does not appear to be orriginating from the Union, which would be what I would expect, as the union surely realizes that violence at this time would be counterproductive given teh fact that the majority of national opinion is with them and they would risk losing that. I do not deny that the unions have teh potential for violence, realistically almost any organization does, but I wouldn't expect them to actually become acively violent unless teh Republicans win Wisconcin in 2012.
At that point I would not expect emails or phone threats. I would expect relatives of legislators to go missing. I do not intend this to be a threat, I have no personal connection with any unions, and in teh private sector generally find them counter productive and agravating. However it is important to have a realistic appraisal of the capabilities and perspectives of everyone involved in these situations.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:26, Fri 15 Apr 2011.