Quote: The city itself brought a lot of this on itself by not wanting to upset those poor protesters ...........
Bloomberg is an idiot. He should have enforced the law from the start, and this would have been far easier to handle. Instead he waffled and wavered, and when he finally said enough was enough, no one believed him.
Well - it seems like the law might not be so cut and dried - not that I'm a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but a NY judge just ruled that the city has to let the protesters return and repitch tents etc.
From what I understand the protest is currently resetting itself up in the park.
Edit: Sorry, the news is moving faster than me. Another judge ruled that the protestors could return, but not with tents/generators etc.
How can any city ever hope to require a permit for any assemblage of people in the future?
It can't be that the OWS people don't collect money ... because they do. It can't be that it was an "unorganized" protest, because after the first week or so it stops being spur of the moment, initiative for a spontaneous protest, and becomes organized. Why should one organized protest or assembly be exempt from permits and security requirements, while others are not?
Can you now stop homeless people from camping out on city or private property? What if they claim a political message? I mean ... if a homeless guy plops down to sleep on a prk bench with a sign saying "I am the 99% - 1", can he be thrown out of the park? Can the deviants who are attracted to certain parks made famous in political scandals now do their thing in peace, without fear of prosecution?
How about when the KKK wants to march through the street, carrying their signs of "political protest" ...... you know ..... in an unplanned and spontaneous manner?
To me, the problem is that once you allow 1 to do something, then everyone else has the right to expect similar treatment under the same laws.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I agree but I think the video in question is UC Berkley.
Looks to me like it was excessive but the question is this, if the police are there to do their job and their job is to remove the tents, then how long should they allow this joined group of students to prevent them from doing it? It's not like they were harboring a murderer or anything, I get that the severity of "the crime" isn't all that great, having tents on a lawn... but still, how long should police engage in a standoff before they act?
If it is against the law, then they should have been cleared out immediately.
I would say the same if it were a different protest as well.
The law should be followed. If people want to protest, then follow the law. If they do not want to follow the law, then they should pay the price that action calls for.
The reason that I cited Bloomberg is because he put everyone who followed him in a difficult situation by allowing and encouraging these protests in NYC, and by refusing to follow and enforce the law.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Ytown, I agree with you in theory but beating people with batons because they won't let you take their tents down seems a bit extreme. The force you use to enforce the law has to be measured in relation to the threat and the law you are attempting to enforce.
Quote: The law should be followed. If people want to protest, then follow the law. If they do not want to follow the law, then they should pay the price that action calls for.
When was the last time a protest that followed the law was successful?
Occupy Protesters Cut Through Fence on Church’s Lot — Cops Pour in & Make Arrests Posted on November 15, 2011 at 11:25am by Billy Hallowell
The Blaze has confirmed that Occupy Wall Street protesters cut through a fence on a lot owned by Trinity Church, a major landowner in Manhattan. Earlier this morning, the New York Times reported:
The protesters had their eye on the church’s lot. In mid-morning, a delegation of protesters said they were trying to obtain permission from church officials to occupy the lot.
It was not clear how that negotiation went, but at 11 a.m. two protesters dressed in black, wearing black bandannas over the lower part of their faces, used bolt cutters to snip through the chain-link fence and the crowd began streaming in.
Below, see video of what appears to be a portion of the aforementioned negotiations between Trinity and the Occupiers. In the clip, you’ll also hear faith leaders speak about why they have joined the protest movement:
The church, which has been supportive of the protests thus far, became aware of the event (located not at the church but at a separate location) at the same time media reported on it, indicating that it wasn‘t approved by Trinity’s leaders.
The Blaze called the church and spoke with Kathy Formisano in Trinity’s communications office. “I just heard the same thing that you heard. Yes it’s happening. We’re in the midst of trying to figure out whats going on,” she said.
The lot, she explained, is a piece of land that is owned by the church. While not connected to the house of worship, it is nearby. The location is frequently used for art and cultural exhibits that are unrelated to the church. “We did not allow this,” she confirmed.
So far, the church has been very supportive of the anti-Wall Street movement. “Our position, to date, has been to be very welcoming. They had the general assembly meeting here last Friday in one of our spaces.” In fact, the church has also allowed the protesters to use a community center it owns. The center offers free Internet access and bathrooms.
When asked if the break-in would impact the support the church has offered, Formisano said, “I hope not. I don’t know.” The church plans to release a statement to the media soon.
Around 11:50 a.m. EST, protesters said, via the Occupy live feed, that the church has asked them to leave and is saying that they are not welcome. But directly after this statement was made, protesters then said that this wasn’t an official word from the church.
Around 11:55 a.m. EST, the police moved in and arrested numerous individuals who had crossed onto the church’s property. The Times reports:
At least four journalists, including a reporter and a photographer from The Associated Press, a reporter from The Daily News and a photographer from DNAInfo, were led out in plastic handcuffs.
A few of the detentions were done roughly — one man was thrown on the ground by the police and officers kneeled on his back. But most were more routine.
web page In this instance, if you are going to dress in black and cover your face and B&E somebody else's property, then you deserve the baton the second you fail to comply.
Yes. Rapes and violence... Have you even noticed the positive news? Take off your Tea Party glasses and imagine one of your kids being beat with a baton for standing up and saying NO to the ruling class.
Quote: The law should be followed. If people want to protest, then follow the law. If they do not want to follow the law, then they should pay the price that action calls for.
When was the last time a protest that followed the law was successful?
What do you consider a success?
The Tea Party's followed the law, got their message out, and elected people. To me, that's successful. I have no idea what the OWS people have successfully accomplished other than complain and tick people off.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
While hitting them with a baton is a bit extreme, the only way to break up a "human chain" is 1) to wait them out, or 2) use force to break them apart.
Guess what, when the police ask you to leave or disperse and you refuse, it usually won't end well for you and that doesn't matter if your alone at 7-11 or in a park with hundreds or protesters. Expect to be removed by force.
Now I think water cannons, pepper spray rubber bullets would have been better options that hitting people with batons. Batons should only be used as a defensive weapon or a device to direct and corral a crowd, but never an offensive weapon.
Personally I'd just keep soaking the entire park for hours on end, eventually they will all freeze and leave.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Yes. Rapes and violence... Have you even noticed the positive news? Take off your Tea Party glasses and imagine one of your kids being beat with a baton for standing up and saying NO to the ruling class.
Honestly - this TEA party crap is getting idiotic. It makes you look stupid.
Who ever said I was a member of some TEA party?
Idiotic - that's what you sound like.
I make a simple statement that not all of these jerkwagon protests are non violent, and all of a sudden I'm a member of a party that technically doesn't exist? ( at least as far as I know)
Rapes? Broken windows? Breaking and entering? Those are fine with you?
Quote: The law should be followed. If people want to protest, then follow the law. If they do not want to follow the law, then they should pay the price that action calls for.
When was the last time a protest that followed the law was successful?
What do you consider a success?
The Tea Party's followed the law, got their message out, and elected people. To me, that's successful. I have no idea what the OWS people have successfully accomplished other than complain and tick people off.
I know you desperately want the Tea Party to mean something because they made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but they did not succeed in their goals.
Their goals were to change the system in a way that cut federal spending and limited the scope and power of federal government.
They failed to do so. All they accomplished was to elect a new set of GOP representatives who have, to date, overwhelmingly upheld the status quo, and have voted not only to increase government spending, but also to expand the power and scope of the federal government.
A successful movement, to me, would be one that actually succeeds in enacting the change that they banded together for.
And a movement is not a failure if they do not accomplish everything in the 1st year. (especially when the opposition party controls the White House and Senate)
I am trying to imagine you with kids ......
Kid comes home from 1st grade with a C. "You're a failure. You will never amount to anything. You did not do what I expected out of you, which was perfection."
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Don't pretend you're not slanted Arch, we've all read more than a few of your post too. And I never called you idiotic or stupid, so don't go there with me. This board is full of Tea Party supporters, period. The don't like the OWS, period. So when I remind them of that, the react just like you JUST DID.
I'm not saying bad things haven't happened and those reports are untrue, but you condemn the whole movement based on the acts of a few. I happen to think the 1% are screwing it up for everyone. That's called My Opinion.
Quote: And a movement is not a failure if they do not accomplish everything in the 1st year. (especially when the opposition party controls the White House and Senate)
I am trying to imagine you with kids ......
Kid comes home from 1st grade with a C. "You're a failure. You will never amount to anything. You did not do what I expected out of you, which was perfection."
When these Tea party candidates were elected, I said that they would continue on with the status quo, and vote to increase federal spending and expand government power.
No, they wouldn't, you said. This was different. This movement was real. This new breed was going to change things, and if they didn't the Tea Party would be right there to demand accountability and vote them out if they didn't comply.
Tell me, if a year isn't long enough, how long will it take?
How long will it take before they stop rallying around clowns like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who have long histories of voting to increase federal spending and power?
How long will it take before the candidates they elected stop voting to increase federal spending and power?
How long will it take before they stop talking nonsense about how Obama is carrying out a socialist agenda, or how we need to return to a free market economic system we've never had?
How long will it take for you to admit that the Tea Party turned out to be nothing more than a voting bloc for the GOP to dupe? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years?
Right now, we're at a year, and they've failed in the ways I predicted. Your prediction, however, hasn't really happened. The Tea Party isn't demanding accountability for the failures and hypocrisy of their candidates. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
Do you have kids Ytown? And if so what would you do if they came home with a C? Restrict the collective bargaining rights of the Teacher's Union?
Fact is, just like it's been said on here many times, the OWS and the Tea Party supporters really want many of the same things. But the so called Tea Party leaders (who hijacked the movement) want you to hate the OWS and have gone out of their way to promote anti-OWS propaganda.
Who pushed the debt deal into cuts, rather than a rubber stamp?
Like I said ..... it's not perfect ..... but no movement is. Bottom line is that they did bring issues to public consciousness, and they did push for spending cuts rather than increases like we have seen over the past 3 or 4 years.
I see cuts as a win. You don't. Again, we'll agree to disagree.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Don't pretend you're not slanted Arch, we've all read more than a few of your post too. And I never called you idiotic or stupid, so don't go there with me. This board is full of Tea Party supporters, period. The don't like the OWS, period. So when I remind them of that, the react just like you JUST DID.
I'm not saying bad things haven't happened and those reports are untrue, but you condemn the whole movement based on the acts of a few. I happen to think the 1% are screwing it up for everyone. That's called My Opinion.
I'm one of the 53%. Or 52%, whatever it is.
I love the 1%, because they actually spend a ton of money. They pay a ton of money in taxes.
I don't know how or why you think I'm a TEA party guy. I like the idea that I'm actually taxed enough - the idea that the few working people cannot support the masses -and if that makes me a TEA party guy in your mind, have at it.
Here's a thought: Look at these unions - public OR private. They are rapidly coming to the conclusion that, without more money, it just ain't gonna work.
Tell me, exactly, where we are/were entitled to work for 30 years and then be done? Health care paid for, prescriptions paid for, pension coming in monthly. How's that supposed to work?
Here's a clue. It doesn't. Unions are a ponzi scheme, just like s.s. is a ponzi scheme.
Here's another clue: You can tax the "rch" at 90%, and the way things are, it won't affect our debt at all. What it WILL affect is jobs - and it will make jobs sink to the lowest level ever.
Here's what should be done: ANYTHING to encourage job growth in this country. Why? Because people will learn to fend for themselves. And we'll ALL be better off for it.
Tearing down the rich is stupid (keep in mind, "rich" are those that make $250,000 or more - they aren't going after the millionaires and billionaires like they say - heck, Buffet is a perfect example of that. He wants OTHERS to pay more in taxes, while he's millions behind in paying)
Howsabout we let workers work. Howsabout we understand that you won't make at age 25 what you do at age 50? Howsabout we let this country realize that if you don't work - if you don't save - there is no such thing as retirement on the backs of those that do work.
I'm 43. I understand completely that I will never retire. Never. Such is life.
That means that 43% of that part of the Congress did something they said that they would.
That's a pretty big win IMO.
I would bet that those 43% were most of the votes against.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: That means that 43% of that part of the Congress did something they said that they would.
In ONE instance.
If you want to look at the whole picture, and examine votes regarding the increase of federal spending, and the increase of federal power, we're looking at less than 10% (Let me guess, less than 10% is a success to you, right? It's a start?)
So, in the ONE instance that you cherrypicked to make your point, the majority of Tea Party candidates failed to do what they said they would.
And you consider that a success?
If you want to carry on with your kid analogy ... your kid consistently gets 8% on all test scores. On a big test, they score a 43%.
Are you going to tell them how successful they were?
Quote: Tearing down the rich is stupid (keep in mind, "rich" are those that make $250,000 or more - they aren't going after the millionaires and billionaires like they say - heck, Buffet is a perfect example of that. He wants OTHERS to pay more in taxes, while he's millions behind in paying)
No, the rich are the 1% that have more than the lower 90%. $250, 000 does not make you rich. People who throw those numbers out are doing so to create a new tax bracket. The Billionaires are the rich. The super corps are the rich (Corps are legally considered people, in case you didn't know). These are the rich the OWS is after.
Quote: Tearing down the rich is stupid (keep in mind, "rich" are those that make $250,000 or more - they aren't going after the millionaires and billionaires like they say - heck, Buffet is a perfect example of that. He wants OTHERS to pay more in taxes, while he's millions behind in paying)
No, the rich are the 1% that have more than the lower 90%. $250, 000 does not make you rich. People who throw those numbers out are doing so to create a new tax bracket. The Billionaires are the rich. The super corps are the rich (Corps are legally considered people, in case you didn't know). These are the rich the OWS is after.
Why doesn't the OWS crowd just out and make their own damn money if they want it and quit trying to reach into someone else's pockets? Lazy )(%$&)*
Quote: Why doesn't the OWS crowd just out and make their own damn money if they want it and quit trying to reach into someone else's pockets? Lazy )(%$&)*
So you're mad that people went broke based on their own bad decisions, and then turned around and expected a handout?
Quote: Why doesn't the OWS crowd just out and make their own damn money if they want it and quit trying to reach into someone else's pockets? Lazy )(%$&)*
So you're mad that people went broke based on their own bad decisions, and then turned around and expected a handout?
Sounds like you should be protesting Wall Street.
At least they have good taste in wine.
I'm not mad at anyone. You have a right to be a moron in this country if you see fit to do it.
Quote: Why doesn't the OWS crowd just out and make their own damn money if they want it and quit trying to reach into someone else's pockets? Lazy )(%$&)*
So you're mad that people went broke based on their own bad decisions, and then turned around and expected a handout?
Sounds like you should be protesting Wall Street.
At least they have good taste in wine.
I'm not mad at anyone. You have a right to be a moron in this country if you see fit to do it.
Obviously the OWS crowd is exercising that right.
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's disingenuous to paint them as 'lazy people who want a handout'.
There are valid concerns to be had about Wall Street, and it's not class warfare whining.
It seems to me the marginalization is coming in the form of 'well, they're lazy freeloaders who want a handout'.
I don't find that to be a valid argument, considering that the overwhelming majority of them have full-time jobs (53%-70%, depending on what poll you choose to trust).
Personally, 100% of those I know who consider themselves a part of OWS have jobs, with the exception of one who is retired.
Now ... with that said ... the lack of direction IS a valid complaint. That's where these people lose all credibility. They don't know what they want, and if they do, it's almost always something that they really don't want (i.e. do you want to live in a world where you own 3 shirts that cost $200 a piece, because everyone is making a fair wage and no one is getting screwed).
Not to continue with the quotes that are sure to end a few drug induced peoples nights with a "wow man, check these boxes out, they just go on forever".
Disingenuous? Who has a real job that can camp out overnight at these "events"?
I can only relate to the local "Occupy Tulsa" crowd that I know most aren't familiar with, who, once arrested, we find are usually bused in professional protestors. They don't have a clue what they are protesting, they're just taking up space in a local park and once the authorities confront them to move, they scream brutality.
This is the most worthless group of malcontents I've seen since the 60's. At least those folks had a serious message to send. These folks have no clue why they are there and what they are protesting.
Any time you point out some totally inane thing somebody says in the name of OWS, you get the response "Thats just one person" so you find 50 really stupid things and you get "They don't speak for everybody" So you find what the people with the microphones are saying, which is equally stupid you get a similar response.... So who DOES speak for them? Who SHOULD I listen to so I can better understand what they want?
So you combine this mixed obscure message with the stupid stuff like the violence, the breaking into property, the crapping in the streets, the rapes, the violence....
Then on top of that you throw in the hypocrisy of depositing their donation money into an account at BB&T where they were breaking windows a couple days earlier, sitting in Star Bucks and using their iPads and iPhones on the Verizon or Sprint Network to access Facebook and Twitter to bash corporations for making too much money...
And it becomes no wonder that the average person has a hard time taking them seriously.
Quote: So who DOES speak for them? Who SHOULD I listen to so I can better understand what they want?
Quote: And it becomes no wonder that the average person has a hard time taking them seriously.
I agree 100%.
If you want to dig into past threads about the Tea Party, I said the exact same thing: what we have is a group that does have a valid, earnest, important message at it's core, but it's one that gets drowned out by the other 99% (no pun intended).
You'll also find that these groups are easily appeased by superficial nonsense. I think if tomorrow morning Obama came out and said 'OWS, I'm with you, here's some toothless legislation that changes nothing but sounds nice', these OWS kids would go home happy and pretend like they changed things.
Look no further than YTown in this thread ... the guy literally believes that the Tea Party movement was a success, because in the one narrowed, cherrypicked example, less than half of the people they got elected said they would do what they would (and did not in almost every other facet).
I think it's an ego thing more than anything. People are angry, and they want to change things, so they latch onto things they are duped into believing will do so ... and at the end of the day, they can't reconcile that it didn't change things, and that they really had no power, and no message. They were just mad.
I believe that the movement was successful in a limited manner. I do not believe that they changed everything they set out to do. I do believe that they managed to bring issues to the forefront of political debate.
Change does not happen overnight, nor does it happen all at once. It certainly does not happen when the other party controls the Senate and White House, and while there are members of the same Party in the House who do not believe in some of the principles put forth by those supporting Tea Party principles.
You seem to think that every member of the Tea Party ran on exactly the same ideas, and that they all made exactly the same promises. They didn't. They ran on lower taxes and less government. That's not going to get through this Congress and White House ..... yet they fought the debt ceiling increase, and did get a minimal deal that would not have otherwise been made. It's a lousy deal, but it's better than what we would have seen otherwise. The debt ceiling would have been rubber-stamped, as has happened before.
The Tea Party is NOT perfect. Neither is anyone else. The Tea Party did do part of what they set out to do, and they did accomplish a small part .... which is all they could do given the very small slice of government they have any say in.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
More and more I hear about OWS, the more and more it's just being a liberal movement that is trying to claim everyone is part of their movement. I want to support them, but more and more I cannot.
It's too much about "taxing the rich" and not actually changing the system itself. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with the corporate control of our government. It's just a money grab to grab money from other people because they feel they are entitled to it. I agree with their moaning and groaning on about corporations have too much influence over our government, but at the same time so does the Unions.
Our government should be corporation-neutral and union-neutral. They should not be making laws that are beneficially nor harmfully geared towards corporations or unions. They should be making laws on the basis of and for the "99%" and the "1%" that are actually people and not coporations or unions.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Quote: You seem to think that every member of the Tea Party ran on exactly the same ideas, and that they all made exactly the same promises. They didn't.
Wait a minute ...
I thought that was the difference between the Tea Party and OWS. You said so yourself. The Teap Party had a clear, unified, coherent message, and OWS doesn't.
Now, all of a sudden, , the Tea Party doesn't have a unified, coherent message? Not everyone is one the same page?
Quote: I believe that the movement was successful in a limited manner.
So first it was successful.
Now it's successful in 'a limited manner'?
Quote: I do believe that they managed to bring issues to the forefront of political debate.
So if OWS manages to do that, they're a success in your eyes?
Quote: It certainly does not happen when the other party controls the Senate and White House, and while there are members of the same Party in the House who do not believe in some of the principles put forth by those supporting Tea Party principles.
So it's the Democrats' fault that over 90% of elected Tea Party candidates failed to do what they said they'd do?
And by that, I don't mean change things ... I merely mean vote against increased federal spending and expansion of government power.
Quote: The Tea Party is NOT perfect. Neither is anyone else.
OWS isn't perfect ... you've been ripping them from day one.
You don't see the double standard?
You've argued that they're not the same thing, because the Tea Party had a coherent, unified message and OWS didn't.
But now that you've been hit with facts you can't explain away, suddenly, the Tea Party wasn't unified, they all didn't have the same promises or goals, and no movement is perfect?
Quote: and they did accomplish a small part .... which is all they could do given the very small slice of government they have any say in.
Amongst the small slice they had a say in, over 90% failed to do what they said they'd do.
In the one instance you provided as an example of the movement's success, less than half did what they said they'd do.
Forget the Democrats, forget Obama, and forget our corrupt system - these people said they'd do something. They failed to do it, overwhelmingly.
But you consider it a success, because 8% of them did what they said they would?
Quote: More and more I hear about OWS, the more and more it's just being a liberal movement that is trying to claim everyone is part of their movement. I want to support them, but more and more I cannot.
It's too much about "taxing the rich" and not actually changing the system itself. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with the corporate control of our government. It's just a money grab to grab money from other people because they feel they are entitled to it. I agree with their moaning and groaning on about corporations have too much influence over our government, but at the same time so does the Unions.
Our government should be corporation-neutral and union-neutral. They should not be making laws that are beneficially nor harmfully geared towards corporations or unions. They should be making laws on the basis of and for the "99%" and the "1%" that are actually people and not coporations or unions.
Hell, if I was in charge, the government would be cut in half immediately. I would slash entire departments. I would simplify the income tax system. I would cut the IRS probably by 85%. I would make draconian cuts to government spending.
If I sent a bill to Congress doing this, I would likely be dead before I could even do so.
Would the fact that I could not do what I wanted to do because of the system make me a failure? What if I got 20% of what I wanted? How about 30%? What if it took 3 years to get 20%? Big changes take time .... especially changing the system to take and spend less money.
That does not mean that the ideals and principles of the movement were flawed. Spending money is easy. Cutting spending is difficult, and will get you vilified more than anything else a politician can do.
Also, not every Tea Party candidate said that they would not work for earmarks. Not all candidates necessarily opposed earmarks. Some may have seen them as a legitimate attempt to bring some of the money their district sends to Washington back home. I don't know all of their specific campaign positions. You use that as a broken promise, but if a candidate did not make such a promise, and used the system as a legitimate means to bring back what was sent from his/her district, then if they ran on that, should they go back on that?
I would love to know who you see as an effective and legitimate legislator, who has done what they said they would do, and whose positions you support. I would love to know what you would like to see our system replaced with, since you seem to think that it cannot be fixed.
If you had the power to do anything, what would YOU do?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Would the fact that I could not do what I wanted to do because of the system make me a failure?
No.
What would make you a failure is doing the opposite of what you said you would do, which is what over 90% of elected Tea Party candidates did (57% in your cherrypicked example).
Quote: I would love to know who you see as an effective and legitimate legislator, who has done what they said they would do, and whose positions you support.
I've said time and time again on this board - our system does not allow for effective or legitimate legislators. It, like every and any system, is concerned first and foremost with protecting and enhancing the system. If you do not do this, you will be weeded out or marginalized.
Hence, why you see all of these people who were elected by the Tea Party on promises of cutting spending and slashing government suddenly voting to increase spending and government scope and power.
Quote: If you had the power to do anything, what would YOU do?
Dismantle our system of government.
It doesn't work. It has no basis in our founding principles.
I have my own ideas and opinions on what we should do as a nation, but I'm not King, nor do I want to be, even in fantasy. If you want my opinions on what I want our government to do, I've done that on this board many times, and I can do it again.
However ... no solution will come from voting through the system. That game was rigged a long time ago. The Tea Party candidates have done exactly what I said they would do, and the opposite of what you said they would do. Were those folks earnest in their intentions? Maybe, maybe not. But the bottom line is, you can't change the system from the inside. The system either changes you or discards you.
So what system would you use to replace the one we have?
I am really curious to know what you see as an ideal (or superior) system.
Actually, there are a lot of political systems in place today that I see as enormously corrupted. The IRS is a political playground ... with paybacks, and refundable tax credits that have become nothing more than paybacks and vote buys. I wish that the legislative system was changed so that bills could only be introduced and amended with directly connected amendments. In other words, no pay increases for teachers in a military bill, or a new sewer plant in a bill regarding border security. If I had just 2 political wishes, these are the 2 areas I would wish to be addressed. Treat all income as income, and tax it in a flat manner, without credits and deductions beyond legitimate business expenses. I would make 1 bill be 1 bill. No more disassociated amendments and riders that have nothing to do with the original bill.
These are the first (and largest) steps I would take if I could modify our government. I would really like to know what you would do. You always tell everyone else that you don't like what we have ..... what is it you would prefer? I really don't remember a distinct statement on your part as far as what you would replace our current system with, and what form your ideal government would take.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
First of all, let's note that you turned the argument onto my beliefs, because you ran out of steam trying to justify your assertion that less than 10% of the Tea Party candidates doing what they said they would was a 'success'.
With that said...
Quote: So what system would you use to replace the one we have?
I wouldn't stray too far from our original intents.
I think a representative democracy, while flawed, is the best way to handle a large population.
We don't have a representative democracy, and things like 'no pay increases for teachers in a military bill' won't change that. It's just trying to shine a piece of crap.
Our system needs dismantled completely. It's too far gone. It doesn't even remotely resemble the principles our country was founded upon. 'By the people, for the people' became 'by the monied interests, for the monied interests' a long time ago.
I'm more of a states' rights guy. I think states' rights is a very flawed idea, but I think people are very flawed as well, and in the end I don't know that states are any more flawed in their thinking than on a federal level.
I don't think the government - state or federal - should have anything to do with things that don't directly affect other people, and I don't mean in the sense of 'I don't want my kids to see gays kissing'. I mean in the sense that it directly affects your ability to live your life as you see fit.
The government should have no say in what you do in your own time, so long as you don't threaten the freedom and liberty of others. They shouldn't tell people who they can marry, or what drugs they can do, or what guns they can own.
I think too many people look to the government to instill the values that they believe, rather than what it should do - protect you from having your own personal values infringed upon.
OK, so how would that really be different from what we started out with?
Originally, the power rested with the states, and over time began accumulating in Washington. We went from State Legislatures electing Senators to direct election of Senators. However, very little has changed in the form and function of the original Congress to today's Congress, other than an ever far and over-reaching power grab. Any right that is not nailed down is under assault from Washington.
So what would you do at the federal level? Without a federal government, and the protection afforded by a federal government with an armed forces, the individual states would be picked off by outside forces. Further, states inside the borders of the United States could be subject to unreasonable tarriffs and "transit fees" if products, goods, and materials had to cross another state's border somewhere along the line.
What about smaller states? Could a poorer state like WV survive on its own, or would it be absorbed, either in total, or in part, by its neighbors?
What if the border states decided that they would band together as a federation and charge tariffs for goods, products, and materials that go through or over their land? Without a strong federal government to prevent it, this could easily happen.
Also ... since many federal policies start out at state levels .... like marriage amendments and so on ...... what happens when states have 50 different laws regarding marriage? (for example) If one state says marriage is A, and the next says that marriage is "B", what happens if a couple moves from state A to state B? Are they married, unmarried, married under the rules of state A, or married under the laws of state B? Who keeps track? Or do you feel that marriage has no place in our society?
You want personal liberties, but also states' rights. What if the 2 come into conflict, such as with regards to marriage laws? What if the people of a state decide that they want to have within their constitution an amendment detailing what marriage is? Then what?
I know that you feel that government should have no say in what people do with others of similar ideas ..... but what about the children affected by those practices? How about drug addicts? How would you treat them?
I am all for more states rights and less federal power. On that, we are in agreement. I think that we could cut out hundreds, if not thousands of government departments, agencies, directors and employees. I think that the federal government can and should be downsized dramatically. I do, however, feel that the federal government has a vital, but limited role to play in today's world. I think that it needs fixed, not dismantled. I also feel that a people have the right to say what they accept as moral and acceptable behavior. I believe that people have the right to set minimal acceptable behaviors expected of their citizens. For example, I don't want to see ugly people and/or men walking down the street nude.
Having all of the power at the state level could have worked at one point ..... but this country is committed to the path its on now. It's like a huge freight ship ..... there are no hairpin turns. If we want to be realistic, then we work for small and lasting changes ... and then more changes as we can ...... Well, that, or we can complain and do nothing .... and put down everyone who tries in any way to effect change.
I think that people look at change expecting hairpin turns. That cannot happen. The ship has too much mass, and too much momentum. It will take small course corrections to effect bigger changes. Either that or revolution ....... but I don't see hundreds of thousands, let alone millions of people out in the streets demanding those types of changes.Some people may be like you, and have given up, but since a sizable percentage of people eligible to vote do so ..... I would say that many have not.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)