This has probably been tackled before, but I haven't seen that thread yet, and a post I made a few minutes ago made me think of it.
I disagree with the Tea Party for a variety of reasons (pretty much all of them), but the thing that bothers me about them the most is the gall that they have to steal the image of one of the few cool things my city has done. Ok, you hate taxes and the American Revolution and the events leading up to it is about as American as you can make your movement. So start with the shouting of "No taxation without representation!"
Yeah! I fully agree! But you're overlooking the last two words. Think about it. Without representation. Congress, the governmental body that is empowered to levy taxes against the American people, is your representation. The members of Congress are chosen by the people (of the people, for the people, etc, etc). Wanting lower taxes and less governmental interference by the accepted governing body of the US is not the same demand as being a British colony not enjoying representation in Parliament. DC is the only place in the US that has a right to bitch about this.
No taxation without representation is not the same as no taxation period. And the converse of the statement is also true. No representation without taxation. You want a piece of the government pie, you gotta pay your dues.
That is all for the moment.
to play texas advocate for a second,
cultural re appropriation is unavoidable. It's natural for events and historical figures get picked up and contextualized by different groups or causes.
The meaning of a historical event isn't concrete, it's up for interpretation. The fact that Bostonites read this particular act of rebellion as a cry for representative democracy doesn't preclude the GOP from reading it as a rebellion against the perception of tyranny.
We may think it's WHACK ATTACK that glenn beck held his privileged rage rally on the same day as martin luther king's I Have A Dream speech... but you gotta admit that if you want to send a message about an uplifting, empowering change, that's a pretty evocative date regardless of your relationship to MLKs specific points.
So sadly, even though the Tea Party was in Boston, I don't think the Bostonites necessarily own the "true" reading of it.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 12:39:22 AM
to play texas advocate for a second,
cultural re appropriation is unavoidable. It's natural for events and historical figures get picked up and contextualized by different groups or causes.
The meaning of a historical event isn't concrete, it's up for interpretation. The fact that Bostonites read this particular act of rebellion as a cry for representative democracy doesn't preclude the GOP from reading it as a rebellion against the perception of tyranny.
We may think it's WHACK ATTACK that glenn beck held his privileged rage rally on the same day as martin luther king's I Have A Dream speech... but you gotta admit that if you want to send a message about an uplifting, empowering change, that's a pretty evocative date regardless of your relationship to MLKs specific points.
So sadly, even though the Tea Party was in Boston, I don't think the Bostonites necessarily own the "true" reading of it.
No, we don't own it specifically, all of America owns it-but they're still missing out on the without representation bit.
If they want to use the phrase, they should hack off or alter the second half. Or come up with their own slogan and brand name.
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I am compelled to point out that Dc is not the only place in the US suffering from taxation without representation.
Puerto Rico, the USVI, Guam, and the CNMI are all in the same boat.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 12:52:36 AM
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I am compelled to point out that Dc is not the only place in the US suffering from taxation without representation.
Puerto Rico, the USVI, Guam, and the CNMI are all in the same boat.
You are correct, thanks for pointing out my oversight. I wonder how this could be corrected in such places, without necessarily applying for statehood (since that's an unresolved question, at least in PR)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 12:48:40 AM
No, we don't own it specifically, all of America owns it-but they're still missing out on the without representation bit.
If they want to use the phrase, they should hack off or alter the second half. Or come up with their own slogan and brand name.
ah but in their minds, they do not have to change anything. they are not consciously reappropriating! The meaning of the event, regardless of the language, is clear to them. The intent is to present their movement as a continuation of some proto-american rebellious tradition. Your particular reading of it is just as much of a fiction.
don't get me wrong, I think it's whack attack too.
I'd be happy if they'd just look at the context. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an excuse.
Of course, I'd also be happy if they'd all get over the idea that taxation is always theft.
Not that I don't agree with the general sentiment of this thread, but...
QuoteDistrict of Columbia-Delegate, Democrat
2136 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-5100
Phone: (202) 225-8050
Committees:
Committee on Homeland Security
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittees:
Aviation (Transportation and Infrastructure)
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management (Transportation and Infrastructure)
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response (HHM)
Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia (Oversight and Government Reform)
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives (Oversight and Government Reform)
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection (HHM)
Water Resources and Environment (Transportation and Infrastructure)
QuoteEni F. H. Faleomavaega
American Samoa-Delegate, Democrat
2422 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-5201
Phone: (202) 225-8577
Committees:
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittees:
Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment (Foreign Affairs)
Energy and Mineral Resources (Natural Resources)
Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife (Natural Resources)
The Western Hemisphere (Foreign Affairs)
QuoteMadeleine Z. Bordallo
Guam-Delegate, Democrat
427 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515-5301
Phone: (202) 225-1188
Committees:
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittees:
Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife (Natural Resources)
Military Personnel (Armed Services)
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (Natural Resources)
Readiness (Armed Services)
QuotePedro R. Pierluisi
Puerto Rico-Resident Commissioner, Democrat
1218 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-5401
Phone: (202) 225-2615
Committees:
Committee on Education and Labor
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittees:
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (Judiciary)
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (Education and Labor)
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness (Education and Labor)
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law (Judiciary)
Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife (Natural Resources)
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (Natural Resources)
QuoteDonna M. Christensen
Virgin Islands-Delegate, Democrat
1510 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-5501
Phone: (202) 225-1790
Committees:
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittees:
Communications, Technology, and the Internet (Energy and Commerce)
Health (Energy and Commerce)
Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife (Natural Resources)
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (Natural Resources)
Oversight and Investigations (Energy and Commerce)
Do their delegates in the House of Representatives not count (serious question, I don't know if these delegates count as members of the House or what they can do, etc.)? I don't know what CNMI is, though, but looking through the list of members on the House's website, unless it's American Samoa, they don't appear to be represented.
CNMI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNMI
the delegates you list are only allowed to vote in committee, not on the floor during the actual votes that count towards passage of legislation.
CNMI is the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan, Tinian, Rota).
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 03:33:54 AM
the delegates you list are only allowed to vote in committee, not on the floor during the actual votes that count towards passage of legislation.
CNMI is the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan, Tinian, Rota).
Ah. I see. Then no, they don't count. Good to know. CMNI does have a delegate though, I just missed it the first time through the list.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 12:48:40 AM
No, we don't own it specifically, all of America owns it-but they're still missing out on the without representation bit.
If they want to use the phrase, they should hack off or alter the second half. Or come up with their own slogan and brand name.
ah but in their minds, they do not have to change anything. they are not consciously reappropriating! The meaning of the event, regardless of the language, is clear to them. The intent is to present their movement as a continuation of some proto-american rebellious tradition. Your particular reading of it is just as much of a fiction.
don't get me wrong, I think it's whack attack too.
Oh, I know, you're pointing out their logic. I don't know, if I decided to adopt a slogan and an evocative movement name, I would at least double check all the angles of interpretation of them before I ended up looking like an idiot mindlessly chanting a mantra that I didn't fully understand.
Like the whole right to bear arms argument to resist the government trying to enact gun control laws (they turk rrr ghens!!!), ignoring that the reason given is that a "well regulated militia" is "necessary for the security of a free state". Now, I don't disagree with someone if they want to buy a couple of guns, but if your state has heavy regulations for it, then it's not infringing on your right, since most gun owners aren't militia members, and the need for militias for maintaining security is obsolete.
Inspired slightly inebriated troll on Yahoo Answers.
The politics section is so easy:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100923013149AApW82r&r=w
Quote from: Hover Cat on September 23, 2010, 02:51:20 AM
I'd be happy if they'd just look at the context. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an excuse.
Of course, I'd also be happy if they'd all get over the idea that taxation is always theft.
I'm aware there are certain people who consider all taxation theft, but my interpretation from people I've spoken with who think along these lines is that taxation under threat of violence and imprisonment with noncompliance is theft, no less than robbing someone at gunpoint is theft. And these people are almost always talking about the income tax, not taxes on products and services, be they necessary or voluntarily used.
incidentally, what are your thoughts on employers paying people under the table, i.e. not withholding income tax and paying it in to the system?
Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 03:41:18 PM
Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.
This is true for me, as well. In the years since I have been able to vote, I have never found a candidate that I feel truly represents me and my interests.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 23, 2010, 03:44:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 03:41:18 PM
Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.
This is true for me, as well. In the years since I have been able to vote, I have never found a candidate that I feel truly represents me and my interests.
Exactly. Even if they move yo to actually vote for them, the second they are elected, well, you know the rest of the story.
didn't the colonies have some folks in parliament that were assigned to represent them?
if i am not mistaken in that, then the founding fellows also didn't feel represented....
so perhaps that is the important part.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 04:43:40 PM
didn't the colonies have some folks in parliament that were assigned to represent them?
if i am not mistaken in that, then the founding fellows also didn't feel represented....
so perhaps that is the important part.
If I recall, that representation was chosen by people in England. Probably a Parliamentary committee on colonial affairs.
true...
so it's not really the same situation in any regard other than the fact that the state considered representation to be in place, but the subjects weren't really feelin' it...
Same thing, only different.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 04:58:19 PM
true...
so it's not really the same situation in any regard other than the fact that the state considered representation to be in place, but the subjects weren't really feelin' it...
The difference is is that the Empire felt that representation was in place, even though the representation was not chosen by the colonists themselves, whereas Tea Partiers don't feel representation is in place, even though they were able to vote for said representation and happen to be disatisfied with the outcome.
It's something I've noticed about people with strong political identification. They get pissed off when their team loses. People now are basically pissed off because there is a Democrat President and a majority Democrat Congress. Democrats were equally pissed off during the Bush years. Sure, you can make an argument about corruption in the system when talking about 2000, but in 2004 the only people you could blame are the American people. The second Bush administration was representation that America wanted at the time, even though people did it begrudgingly. The more I reflect on it the more I think of 2000 onward as an era of American masochism. But at any rate, if Gore won, the GOP would raise the same objections the Dems did. Not that any of it matters, both parties walk like a duck and talk like a duck, they just quack differently on a few hot button issues so we don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain
/mixed metaphor for corporate interests.
At any rate, I don't get pissed off when my team loses, I'm used to it.
Twid,
Red Sox fan who tends to vote Green
1) I am not a tea bagger.
2) No matter which party wins I don't feel represented, in spite of having an opportunity to vote.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 04:30:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 23, 2010, 03:44:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 03:41:18 PM
Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.
This is true for me, as well. In the years since I have been able to vote, I have never found a candidate that I feel truly represents me and my interests.
Exactly. Even if they move yo to actually vote for them, the second they are elected, well, you know the rest of the story.
This I can agree with. Probably the only thing I like about the Tea Party movement is the anti-establishment aspect that wants to get the career politicians out. But, since career politics is a sweet deal if you can get your foot in the door, successful Tea Party candidates would quickly fall into the trap of being part of the system and end up talking about cutting taxes and reducing spending, all the while voting to give themselves raises.
Well, then we get into the definition of 'Representation' vs 'Administration'. The British had appointed Administrators to cover the affairs of the colonies, vs Representatives that represented the interests of the colonists.
In our current system there is a real debate over representation, but that's the crux of the 'representative democracy' vs 'democracy'. A representative democracy doesn't guarantee that your personal interests will be represented. It only guarantees that your district/state will be able to vote on who will represent them in Congress. In the end, that representative could vote completely opposite of what their constituents want/need and still be 'representing' them. The best you can hope for with representative democracy is that the district is small enough, or cohesive enough that your views and their views will match; and that your representative wants to be reelected, thus increasing the likelihood that they will vote in a way that represents your views.
In America, as its configured today, such a situation seems nearly impossible. Most districts are not cohesive, most representatives will play politics and trade representation on some issues to get support on other issues (or reelection). If the Tea Party were seriously interested in the topic of representation (rather than using it as a strawman), their first focus should be in pushing for changes to how representatives are selected, how districts are selected and culpability for representatives voting choices. However, since they're mostly interested in just getting social-fiscal conservatives elected, the real agenda appears patently obvious. They are an activist group based on the disenfranchised social conservatives who are bucking the moderate* flavor of the GOP. The fiscal aspect of their argument is completely out of line with their actual actions. If they were pushing for fiscal responsibility, we would see candidates that were fiscally responsible businessmen with documented plans on getting from where we are now, to a more responsible position in X years. That we are instead seeing political nobodies, with little to no experience in politics, business or well much of anything other than spouting off... speaks volumes to the populist nature of the movement.
Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.
*relatively speaking, obviously.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 05:17:59 PM
1) I am not a tea bagger.
2) No matter which party wins I don't feel represented, in spite of having an opportunity to vote.
Oh, I know. Your sense of lack of representation is more due to the way America is set up, and I don't disagree with you.
Well said Rat.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 05:17:59 PM
1) I am not a tea bagger.
2) No matter which party wins I don't feel represented, in spite of having an opportunity to vote.
Nonsense. You have a 1 in 301,000,000 say in matters, which is about half the chance you have of winning the powerball lottery.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.
They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants.
They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.
They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants.
They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.
:mittens:
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.
They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants.
They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.
:mittens:
On some of the political boards I go to, there's a rather large contingent of fat bastards who jabber about "what will happen if the dems stay in" in ominous tones. Phrases like "We're ready to go to war" are bandied about.
Because, you know, there's nothing more terrifying than 500 morbidly obese teabaggers advancing as far on Washington as the batteries in their mobility scooters will take them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.
They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants.
They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.
:mittens:
On some of the political boards I go to, there's a rather large contingent of fat bastards who jabber about "what will happen if the dems stay in" in ominous tones. Phrases like "We're ready to go to war" are bandied about.
Because, you know, there's nothing more terrifying than 500 morbidly obese teabaggers advancing as far on Washington as the batteries in their mobility scooters will take them.
:spittake:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 23, 2010, 05:20:02 PM
Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.
They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants.
They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.
:mittens:
On some of the political boards I go to, there's a rather large contingent of fat bastards who jabber about "what will happen if the dems stay in" in ominous tones. Phrases like "We're ready to go to war" are bandied about.
Because, you know, there's nothing more terrifying than 500 morbidly obese teabaggers advancing as far on Washington as the batteries in their mobility scooters will take them.
:lulz:
Dammit Dok, you made my cough flare up again!
Frankly, I hope this election rips the country in half, county by county, state by state.
The conservatives deserve it for being the whackjobs they are, and the liberals deserve it for being a pack of spineless pussies.
And I deserve it because, after 13 years without television (more or less), I deserve a little entertainment.
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:39:19 PM
Frankly, I hope this election rips the country in half, county by county, state by state.
The conservatives deserve it for being the whackjobs they are, and the liberals deserve it for being a pack of spineless pussies.
And I deserve it because, after 13 years without television (more or less), I deserve a little entertainment.
Which is exactly why I am voting straight tea bagger.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:39:19 PM
Frankly, I hope this election rips the country in half, county by county, state by state.
The conservatives deserve it for being the whackjobs they are, and the liberals deserve it for being a pack of spineless pussies.
And I deserve it because, after 13 years without television (more or less), I deserve a little entertainment.
Which is exactly why I am voting straight tea bagger.
I'm voting underdog, in a effort to make every election too close to call, which is the only way this would get funnier.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
Election Race Riots- because its not about skin color. Seriously.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
Election Race Riots- because its not about skin color. Seriously.
I just want to see fat people riot. :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
IF I remember correctly elections got pretty rough around the turn of the century, but I don't remember riots. It will be funny if it happens, though.
1800-1900 turn of the century. I forget how old I am.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
Election Race Riots- because its not about skin color. Seriously.
I just want to see fat people riot. :)
It will be a very lethargic riot :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 05:51:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
Election Race Riots- because its not about skin color. Seriously.
I just want to see fat people riot. :)
It will be a very lethargic riot :lulz:
There will be many angry wheezes.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 05:49:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
i'm with you, Dok.
but i don't think it'll happen....
:sad:
it'll continue on just as it is.
Nope. It will become more and more rancorous and hateful. There will be many accusations of election fraud, no matter who wins any given election. The losers will no longer feel any loyalty to the nation at all.
This happens in most elections these days, but it's accelerating, and we may even see some rioting this time.
IF I remember correctly elections got pretty rough around the turn of the century, but I don't remember riots. It will be funny if it happens, though.
1800-1900 turn of the century. I forget how old I am.
That was then, this is now. We have many more avenues for the electorate to become ill-informed and angry.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 12:31:25 AM
This has probably been tackled before, but I haven't seen that thread yet, and a post I made a few minutes ago made me think of it.
I disagree with the Tea Party for a variety of reasons (pretty much all of them), but the thing that bothers me about them the most is the gall that they have to steal the image of one of the few cool things my city has done. Ok, you hate taxes and the American Revolution and the events leading up to it is about as American as you can make your movement. So start with the shouting of "No taxation without representation!"
Yeah! I fully agree! But you're overlooking the last two words. Think about it. Without representation. Congress, the governmental body that is empowered to levy taxes against the American people, is your representation. The members of Congress are chosen by the people (of the people, for the people, etc, etc). Wanting lower taxes and less governmental interference by the accepted governing body of the US is not the same demand as being a British colony not enjoying representation in Parliament. DC is the only place in the US that has a right to bitch about this.
No taxation without representation is not the same as no taxation period. And the converse of the statement is also true. No representation without taxation. You want a piece of the government pie, you gotta pay your dues.
That is all for the moment.
You have to remember that people are stupid. They're just repeating what they've been told, by slightly less stupid people that are smart enough to try to co-opt the founders.
"You know how stupid the average guy is? Well,
by definition, half of all humanity is dumber than THAT!"
- Orton Nenslo.
Coincidentally enough, the Tea Party and GOP together are about 48% of the population.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 06:45:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 12:31:25 AM
This has probably been tackled before, but I haven't seen that thread yet, and a post I made a few minutes ago made me think of it.
I disagree with the Tea Party for a variety of reasons (pretty much all of them), but the thing that bothers me about them the most is the gall that they have to steal the image of one of the few cool things my city has done. Ok, you hate taxes and the American Revolution and the events leading up to it is about as American as you can make your movement. So start with the shouting of "No taxation without representation!"
Yeah! I fully agree! But you're overlooking the last two words. Think about it. Without representation. Congress, the governmental body that is empowered to levy taxes against the American people, is your representation. The members of Congress are chosen by the people (of the people, for the people, etc, etc). Wanting lower taxes and less governmental interference by the accepted governing body of the US is not the same demand as being a British colony not enjoying representation in Parliament. DC is the only place in the US that has a right to bitch about this.
No taxation without representation is not the same as no taxation period. And the converse of the statement is also true. No representation without taxation. You want a piece of the government pie, you gotta pay your dues.
That is all for the moment.
You have to remember that people are stupid. They're just repeating what they've been told, by slightly less stupid people that are smart enough to try to co-opt the founders.
"You know how stupid the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of all humanity is dumber than THAT!"
- Orton Nenslo.
Coincidentally enough, the Tea Party and GOP together are about 48% of the population.
I suppose that's the problematic part of slogans. Sum up an idea in one sentence or less so that it's easily repeatable and just as easily nuance subtle enough for people to eventually fuck up the idea.
But as you noted, appeal to authority via the Founders is a good way to sell your product.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 23, 2010, 06:58:20 PM
I suppose that's the problematic part of slogans. Sum up an idea in one sentence or less so that it's easily repeatable and just as easily nuance subtle enough for people to eventually fuck up the idea.
But as you noted, appeal to authority via the Founders is a good way to sell your product.
Slogans are the perfect control tool...They let people have the luxury of getting angry, without all that hard work
thinking.
You've heard the term "A conclusion is where you stopped thinking."?
Well, a slogan is where you let someone else do it for you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 06:45:30 PM
Coincidentally enough, the Tea Party and GOP together are about 48% of the population.
are there stats on how many teabaggers there are?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends
^ according to that, republicans are only 33% of America, whereas democrats are 35%. Smallest gap since they started tracking it, btw.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 09:42:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 06:45:30 PM
Coincidentally enough, the Tea Party and GOP together are about 48% of the population.
are there stats on how many teabaggers there are?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends
^ according to that, republicans are only 33% of America, whereas democrats are 35%. Smallest gap since they started tracking it, btw.
MAybe Dok was talking about percentage that support the GOP and the Tea Party
Representation is fucked up in this country. A total of about 500 schmucks speaking for 300 million. A more reasonable approach to the same system we have now would have representatives numbering somewhere closer to 30,000. That, of course, would turn the Tea Party "Small Government" types into suicide bombers. Maybe they could rename their movement "The Constikazi Party."
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2010, 01:58:15 AM
Representation is fucked up in this country. A total of about 500 schmucks speaking for 300 million. A more reasonable approach to the same system we have now would have representatives numbering somewhere closer to 30,000. That, of course, would turn the Tea Party "Small Government" types into suicide bombers. Maybe they could rename their movement "The Constikazi Party."
I'm cool with it. It would create 29,500 new jobs. :lulz:
Actually, on further reflection, it would weaken the power of an individual Congressperson. Might make things pretty funny. Corporations would have to shell out even more money to keep politicians in their pockets.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 24, 2010, 02:32:27 AM
Actually, on further reflection, it would weaken the power of an individual Congressperson. Might make things pretty funny. Corporations would have to shell out even more money to keep politicians in their pockets.
Congress would be such an enormous clusterfuck that it would be impossible to do anything except whatever your constituents told you to fucking do.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2010, 03:16:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 24, 2010, 02:32:27 AM
Actually, on further reflection, it would weaken the power of an individual Congressperson. Might make things pretty funny. Corporations would have to shell out even more money to keep politicians in their pockets.
Congress would be such an enormous clusterfuck that it would be impossible to do anything except whatever your constituents told you to fucking do.
Wouldn't it be fantastic? :lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 24, 2010, 03:23:18 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2010, 03:16:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 24, 2010, 02:32:27 AM
Actually, on further reflection, it would weaken the power of an individual Congressperson. Might make things pretty funny. Corporations would have to shell out even more money to keep politicians in their pockets.
Congress would be such an enormous clusterfuck that it would be impossible to do anything except whatever your constituents told you to fucking do.
Wouldn't it be fantastic? :lulz:
I kinda like this idea.
Interesting comparison. (Numbers are rough estimates)
US Congress has about 500 some odd politicians representing 301 million
Indian Parliament has about 750 representing over a billion
The Irish Oireachtas has about 200 representing 4 million
Math spags, how does that break down percentage wise for population and representative?
Oh, and the Althing of Iceland is 63 politicians representing about 300,000- which is fewer people than is covered in an American congressional district with one member in the House of Representatives. (ie, if Iceland was a state in the US, it would be represented with 2 senators and 1 representative)
Idiots will always misconstrue historical events for politically expedient reasons.
This is why we teach history in schools, so people know they're full of shit.
It seems sometimes the history I see being taught today isn't the same history I was taught.
Unfortunately idiots in some places are in charge of the cirriculum, it is true.
That said, you can still pick up The Peloponnesian War and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for pretty cheap (the former you can actually download for free), so there is really no excuse.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 12:36:08 AM
It seems sometimes the history I see being taught today isn't the same history I was taught.
You can pick and choose facts, and interpret them in different ways.
Once when I was in high school, I told this Greek dude who worked at a sub shop I liked that I was learning about the Byzantine Empire, and he got pissed off. He was like "The Byzantine Empire, huh?" "Yeah... like, the Eastern Roman Empire..." "Not the Greek Empire, right?" "Um... the capital was in Byzantium, so..." "Ok, what are they teaching you about Alexander the Great?" "He was the son of Philip of Macedon, and..." "Oh for fucks sake, Alexander was Greek, not Macedonian!"
Matter of perspective.
Cross reference Civil War vs War of Northern Aggression.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2010, 12:37:38 AM
Unfortunately idiots in some places are in charge of the cirriculum, it is true.
That said, you can still pick up The Peloponnesian War and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for pretty cheap (the former you can actually download for free), so there is really no excuse.
True, i guess it was a comment on revisionist history.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2010, 12:37:38 AM
Unfortunately idiots in some places are in charge of the cirriculum, it is true.
That said, you can still pick up The Peloponnesian War and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for pretty cheap (the former you can actually download for free), so there is really no excuse.
I read this ages ago because I had a report on Nazis or WWII or some school reason.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 25, 2010, 12:50:00 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2010, 12:37:38 AM
Unfortunately idiots in some places are in charge of the cirriculum, it is true.
That said, you can still pick up The Peloponnesian War and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for pretty cheap (the former you can actually download for free), so there is really no excuse.
I read this ages ago because I had a report on Nazis or WWII or some school reason.
Damn solid read.
Yeah. Shirer's analysis has some flaws to it, but as a piece of primary evidence, it's pretty fine.
Every time I see it on a shelf in a bookstore I feel compelled to buy it. I think I may when I move out the barracks and have room for shelves.
What Cain said and I think I'll check out those books.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 23, 2010, 12:54:53 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on September 23, 2010, 02:51:20 AM
I'd be happy if they'd just look at the context. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an excuse.
Of course, I'd also be happy if they'd all get over the idea that taxation is always theft.
I'm aware there are certain people who consider all taxation theft, but my interpretation from people I've spoken with who think along these lines is that taxation under threat of violence and imprisonment with noncompliance is theft, no less than robbing someone at gunpoint is theft. And these people are almost always talking about the income tax, not taxes on products and services, be they necessary or voluntarily used.
incidentally, what are your thoughts on employers paying people under the table, i.e. not withholding income tax and paying it in to the system?
That's how my last job was. I was paid sort-of under the table by a public school district for what I did as a coach...but the amount was so piddling that they might not have even felt it was worth the time to put me in the system, though ($200 for over $2k worth of work!). I would have preferred to be on record; that said, I know why people don't. In some cases, I don't necessarily mind (illegal immigrants can, and some DO, pay taxes iirc, but most don't because they're scared to).
For your other point: people don't voluntarily pay for anything if they can get away with it. Income tax I consider valid, because, well, it's where almost all of the money the government has comes from (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm). People like their services; public schools, public roads, unnecessarily large armies, etc. Don't you?
I'd really love to see my tea bagger and libertarian neighbors try to send their kids to private schools. :lulz: The cheapest one here is $20k per year, per student and that's the Catholic one. That won't go down well with some of them.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 23, 2010, 04:43:40 PM
didn't the colonies have some folks in parliament that were assigned to represent them?
if i am not mistaken in that, then the founding fellows also didn't feel represented....
so perhaps that is the important part.
No. If there'd been a warm body hanging around Parliament with the right to vote on the colonies' behalf, there might not have been a revolution, or so my history teacher said the other day. The issue was virtual representation (which they had) versus actual representation (which they didn't and wanted)
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2010, 12:52:34 AM
Yeah. Shirer's analysis has some flaws to it, but as a piece of primary evidence, it's pretty fine.
I would love to see a synopsis on the Battle of Little Big Horn done as honestly.