Stupid Liberal Son of a Bitch

[John Cuthber]

"Isn't the separation of church and state part of the constitution? (or am I mistaken on that)"

It is part of the State's constitution, but not part of the church's constitution.

 

Incidentally, over on this side of the pond it's quite hard to get a feel for how much support the tea party has.

We just see them as loonies, parodied on TV by the news. (to be fair, they do the same for left wing loonies too- but there just aren't so many of them about these days.)

 

This bloke , for example was referred to on a comedy quiz show the other day.

does he count as tea party?

 

Meanwhile, back at the topic, here in the UK such action would be illegal. You are only permitted a very limited number of people at polling stations and they have to behave themselves. Just yelling at people would probably count as breach of the peace and I suspect the other candidates' representatives would act as "independent" witnesses to back you up.

[ajb]

I'm sure there are homophobes, racist in any group of people and most people in the US are Christian, probably more calling themselves Democrat than anything else.

 

It seems that most of the followers of the Tea party are Christian. (As stated by Robert P. Jones, president of Public Religion Research)

 

I think this should be seen as worrying. Surely, most of our American posters here do not want the Christian far right having too much power in Washington?

 

If the history of America never was, where did the founders come up with the ideas we still try to follow?

 

I am not quite sure hat you mean by this. However, I get the impression that the Tea Party is looking to "return" to some America that never really existed.

 

Let us look at an example. The movement states that Lincoln was an "American Hero" and stopped slavery. (This is all in the background of comparing themselves to Martin Luther King at the Lincoln mamorial!) This is true, however they fail to recognise that Lincoln imposed his will on the Southern states via force. The Tea Party wants to stop Washington interfering in their lives, so how can they idolise Lincoln? They should not like him, right?

[A Tripolation]

Trip, you might question the folks who your hanging around with. I'm sure if you met Palin, Rubio, O'Donnell or the some of the millions involved with that group you would find them very intelligent, maybe having different political viewpoints.

 

Most pundits are more intelligent than the average voter. That's a biased pool, I think. And I do doubt Palin's intelligence. Or at least she doesn't contain the type of intellect that I respect.

[Pangloss]

Via my small exposure to them via the media I can honesty say that I have not "warmed to them". Then again, maybe I was never supposed to, I cannot participate in American elections. However, the entire world is watching...

 

Well said and a good point.

 

 

I think that "racist" is a huge oversimplification, and I'm sure most tea partiers don't think of themselves as racist. And I think that calling them that doesn't help anything - since they don't consider themselves racist, being accused of racism just makes them think their opponents are foolish and/or trying to bully them into silence.

 

All that said, I don't think it's entirely wrong. It's an angry populist movement of "the real America" to "take our country back." I think it's more about culture and class and anger/fear of change than it is about race (or, you know, policy), and I think the mentality is flavored with and has a lot in common with racism.

 

I think that's probably pretty accurate. I also think this shows the danger of the historical liberal association between progressive causes and the elimination of racism and segregation.

 

 

It seems that most of the followers of the Tea party are Christian. (As stated by Robert P. Jones, president of Public Religion Research)

 

I think this should be seen as worrying. Surely, most of our American posters here do not want the Christian far right having too much power in Washington?

 

By that measure we already have a right wing religious extremist sitting in the White House. Unless of course you believe the rumors about his secret Muslim status. ;-)

 

 

The movement states that Lincoln was an "American Hero" and stopped slavery. (This is all in the background of comparing themselves to Martin Luther King at the Lincoln mamorial!) This is true, however they fail to recognise that Lincoln imposed his will on the Southern states via force. The Tea Party wants to stop Washington interfering in their lives, so how can they idolise Lincoln? They should not like him, right?

 

The liberal-progressive movement believes that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was among the greatest American presidents because he constructed the social welfare system that not only saved the country from the Great Depression, but created the modern progressive movement. But he also developed the atomic bomb, the most antithetical symbol of the modern peace movement. They should not like him, right?

[ajb]

They should not like him, right?

 

Got to take the rough with the smooth

 

At the risk of being off topic, one can construct such "contradictions" about Winston Churchill.

Edited November 2, 2010 by ajb

[Pangloss]

Oh for sure. Churchill's a fascinating example of conflicting public opinions.

[swansont]

I think jackson33 has already pointed out that electioneering is illegal within some distance of a polling place entrance (I usually see 100' or 150'; it probably varies by location) so unless the line was very long, that was indeed illegal.

 

 

 

Is it less disturbing when a labor union does it?

 

Churches are free to do whatever they please, so long as it's legal. They're simply being hypocritical.

 

 

It's illegal when a church does it. Any entity that is tax-exempt under 501-c-3 of the IRS code is prohibited from campaigning or "substantial" efforts to influence legislation.

 

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913

[divagreen]

I think before any further discussion on TPM ensues, I would just like to put out there a little bit more information.

 

The Tea Party has received a huge chunk of their funding from the Koch brothers.

 

Maybe there is so much misinformation about the Tea Party because there is some obfuscation where they receive their funding:

 

Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

 

In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”

 

 

But wait! Someone who draws a salary says something else:

 

At the lectern in Austin, however, Venable—a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994—spoke less warily. “We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that’s how we’re going to take back America!” she declared, as the crowd cheered. In a subsequent interview, she described herself as an early member of the movement, joking, “I was part of the Tea Party before it was cool!” She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.”

 

So where are these so called grassroots organizations getting their funding from again?

 

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.”

 

So who are representing the Tea Party Movement again?:

 

A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”.

 

People like this:

 

Keith Olbermann reveals.

 

 

Okay, so you're saying that your assessment is based on news accounts, not personal interactions.

 

Oh, stop trying to invalidate poster's position through asking for anecdotal evidence. The evidence of the popular political positions of TPM is there, just read their own websites and their representative's quotes.

 

My opinion is that there is no Tea Party. Only a way to dress up a Republican agenda of corporatism.

 

By the way...since taxes seem to be the rallying cry of the TPM, did you know that 47% of Americans did not have to pay income tax in 2009? Do you think members of the TPM are aware of this? I think not.

 

/rant off.

 

Back to the OP:

 

At least this didn't happen to you:

 

 

Oh, and here's the head-stomper (Local Campaign Coordinator, Tim Profitt) with Tea Party candidate Rand Paul (taken after the head stomping):

 

Edited November 2, 2010 by divagreen

[A Tripolation]

It's illegal when a church does it. Any entity that is tax-exempt under 501-c-3 of the IRS code is prohibited from campaigning or "substantial" efforts to influence legislation.

 

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913

 

 

Holy Crap. How long has THAT been a law???

 

Edit: Ah. 1954. Wow. Thanks for that link.

Edited November 2, 2010 by A Tripolation

[bascule]

Today when I went to vote I was accosted several times by people wanting me to vote for their candidate, since I was in line I listened politely as the line moved but one guy asked me if I knew who i was going to vote for in the several non partisan local appeals court judge races. I told him (truthfully) that I wasn't planning on voting for any of them since i didn't know them and there had been very little information about them available. he covertly offered me a list of the correct choices for these judgeships. I asked him, what he meant by correct. He again pressed the list in my hand and said very quietly so no one would over hear, " i have a list of the candidates the Tea party approves of. I told him no thanks, a list from him wasn't enough information to get me to vote for his people. He stepped back and quite loudly called me a "Stupid Liberal son of a Bitch" so now i know why i can't be a Conservative, I just don't take orders well

 

That sounds like it's probably illegal. I would've alerted one of the people coordinating the election.

 

So Moontanman, do you agree with AJB's assertion that Tea Party groups are homophobic and racist?

 

I think race is certainly a factor in their decision making, but as Jon Stewart said, calling them racist is an insult to real racists.

[jackson33]

"Isn't the separation of church and state part of the constitution? (or am I mistaken on that)"

 

It is part of the State's constitution, but not part of the church's constitution.[/Quote]

 

John Cuthber; Separation of Church and State, is NOT and has NEVER been part of the Constitution. The term itself was taken from a letter, attributed by some to Jefferson. What does separate, in effect the two, is our 1st A, which is part of the Constitution and forbids the Federal Government from establishing a State Religion.

 

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

 

It seems that most of the followers of the Tea party are Christian. (As stated by Robert P. Jones, president of Public Religion Research)

 

I think this should be seen as worrying. Surely, most of our American posters here do not want the Christian far right having too much power in Washington? [/Quote]

 

ajb; I don't question that most TP's are Christian, because again MOST Americans are Christian. In this group however are the Catholics whom are Christian and general vote Democratic. I believe a good share of TP's are comparatively wealthy, in small business, older and being Christian would be less likely. That's purely my opinion and have seen nothing on the topic.

 

If your saying posters here on this forum I'd agree, at least the ones that post. However if their is an obvious objection to Government Participation, IMO it would be for the Evangelical's from those few posters or the general US electorate. That is most do NOT object to a religious person, but don't want an extremely religious person. Think this was one of Bush 43's problem and probably Palin's future problem.

 

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. However, I get the impression that the Tea Party is looking to "return" to some America that never really existed.[/Quote]

 

No, those involved want the Federal Government to ADHERE (stick to) to the Constitution, which by the way has a clear system for allowing any change.

 

Let us look at an example. The movement states that Lincoln was an "American Hero" and stopped slavery. (This is all in the background of comparing themselves to Martin Luther King at the Lincoln memorial!) This is true, however they fail to recognise that Lincoln imposed his will on the Southern states via force. The Tea Party wants to stop Washington interfering in their lives, so how can they idolise Lincoln? They should not like him, right? [/Quote]

 

Well the 8-28 Beck Program (Faith, Hope & Charity) was not a TP event. It WAS basically a religious program, think involving over 500 of the Clergy from this Country, which including Martin Luther King's niece and also a Doctor of Theology. I did watch it and from my agnostic viewpoint found it very inspiring.

 

As for Lincoln and the Civil War, although really off topic, I basically agree with you and often in debate questioned the need to have been fought. True bigotry and Integration, IMO came from that war...However the Country was founded on certain principles, which you can read on my link above link to John. Those principles are the building blocks each generation has built on and the basic construct that started it, for the most part still exist. No society has ever existed with out some bumps.

 

Most pundits are more intelligent than the average voter. That's a biased pool, I think. And I do doubt Palin's intelligence. Or at least she doesn't contain the type of intellect that I respect. [/Quote]

 

Trip; Palin got off to a bad start, no question whatsoever, but keep in mind as a staunch Reagan Conservative, she was chose and accepted to run with at best a Moderate Republican. I know there is no way I could have pulled that off and she IMO did a fairly good job of trying. Most of her recent appearance have been very literate. Aside from that, Palin represents John or Mary Smith, the average person. Walks the walk, talks the talk and all that stuff.

[CharonY]

John Cuthber; Separation of Church and State, is NOT and has NEVER been part of the Constitution.

 

From what I understand Jefferson specified one practical aplication of the first amendment in his letter (and BTW is there any reason to believe that it was NOT from Jefferson?). It is true that the precise wording are not in the constitution, though.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

My link

 

In fact, there is further evidence that it is not merely intended to prohibit the creation of a state religion:

 

Modern constitutional conservatives, such as Chief Justice William Rehnquist (in his 1985 dissent to Wallace v. Jaffree), often argue that the First Amendment meant only to prohibit establishing a national church, while permitting government to pursue other engagements with religion. But this position is hard to reconcile with the fact that Congress, in writing the Amendment, specifically rejected narrow language merely forbidding a national church.

 

In June 1789 Congress declined a proposal from James Madison for a constitutional amendment about religion that said, “nor shall any national religion be established.” In September 1789, Congress rejected several additional proposals for a narrow religion amendment. These would have prohibited establishing “one religious sect or society in preference to others,” or “establishing any religious sect or society,” or “establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”

 

 

My link

Edited November 2, 2010 by CharonY

[Moontanman]

I think jackson33 has already pointed out that electioneering is illegal within some distance of a polling place entrance (I usually see 100' or 150'; it probably varies by location) so unless the line was very long, that was indeed illegal.

 

The guy was outside the boundary set up by the people in charge, to get to the polling place you pretty much have to run a gauntlet of people electioneering but this guy was particularly repugnant in his attitude of outing the liberal judges in general as though his word was the gospel on the subject.

 

 

 

It's illegal when a church does it. Any entity that is tax-exempt under 501-c-3 of the IRS code is prohibited from campaigning or "substantial" efforts to influence legislation.

 

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913

 

That is pretty much how it is done here, churches hand out sample ballots with the people that particular church approves of filled out.

[Pangloss]

It's illegal when a church does it. Any entity that is tax-exempt under 501-c-3 of the IRS code is prohibited from campaigning or "substantial" efforts to influence legislation.

 

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913

 

It's against tax regulation, but the purpose of that law is not to prevent churches from participating in the political process, it's to prevent non-profits from leveraging their tax exemption (which should equally benefit all Americans regardless of political affiliation) to favor a candidate or legislation.

 

The same regulation affects labor unions under 501©(6), but with a different (arguably less effective) mechanism.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200390

Deduction not allowed for dues used for political or legislative activities. A taxpayer cannot deduct the part of dues or other payments to a business league, trade association, labor union, or similar organization that is for any of the following activities.

 

1. Influencing legislation.

2. Participating or intervening in a political campaign for, or against, any candidate for public office.

3. Trying to influence the general public, or part of the general public, with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums (also known as grass roots lobbying).

4. Communicating directly with certain executive branch officials to try to influence their official actions or positions.

 

Grass roots lobbying. A tax-exempt trade association, labor union, or similar organization is considered to be engaging in grass roots lobbying if it contacts prospective members or calls upon its own members to contact their employees and customers for the purpose of urging such persons to communicate with their elected state or Congressional representatives to support the promotion, defeat, or repeal of legislation that is of direct interest to the organization. Any dues or assessments directly related to such activities are not deductible by the taxpayer, since the individuals being contacted, who are not members of the organization, are a segment of the general public.

 

Of course both churches and labor unions find ways around these mechanisms. Churches rent out their facilities to third party entities which they don't officially support. Labor unions maybe just ignore it completely, since the regulation affects the contributor rather than the organization.

[The Bear's Key]

Evidence: 61% of tea party opponents say that racism has a lot to do with the TPM. Only 7% of supporters agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050405168.html?hpid=moreheadlines

7% of supporters is a lot for that kind of admission.

 

Is it less disturbing when a labor union does it?

Yes. Their members aren't forbidden by law to get involved, a member's just unable to claim deduction on taxes for any dues being used for political campaigning.

 

 

So you would expect racists to admit to being racist? If I had $ for every time a racist has sworn not to be racist I would be a rich man.

 

"I don't have anything against black people, I think everyone should own a couple..."

I wasn't suggesting that that figure spoke to the accuracy of the assessment, I suggested that it showed a difference in perception between two groups of people.

Yeah, and surely most ideologies have a different view of themselves compared to an opposing ideology's view of them. So?

 

 

Some of their members/supporters have said really stupid things. Also the more public members seem quite undesirable to me

 

 

• Christine O'Donnell, the witch that says I am not allowed a wan*k.
  
• Sarah Palin, she wants creationism taught in public schools.
  

Okay, so you're saying that your assessment is based on news accounts, not personal interactions.

 

I think this speaks directly to my point about SFN members happily supporting the exact same behavior that they accuse Fox News of perpetrating on the right.

Pangloss, if you speak, and the news records what you said (context included), then the news didn't give you its own "newsy" version of the person. They gave you what the person really said.

 

You're wrong, ajb's correct.

 

 

Let's take a look at how accurate that perception is. Turns out we have actual research on the subject, conducted by a graduate student at UCLA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html?hpid=topnews

 

A new analysis of political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month reveals that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government's economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events.

 

 

There were uglier messages, too - including "Obama Bin Lyin' - Impeach Now" and "Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot." But Ekins's analysis showed that only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president's race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.

And how many gun-rights signs are displayed at "tea" rallies, compared to the percentage of them who surely care about the issue? Obviously it'd be redundant for more than a few people to carry the signs.

 

Better question, though: is your assessment based on personal interactions with tea rallies, or just on detailed accounts?

If the second, then hey, you're somewhat correct in that point about SFN members

 

Those in the Tea Party, claims to support A Literal Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility, Free Market Capitalism and the stupid idea Government works at the will of the people.

Or they support 1) an out of context reading of the U.S. Constitution (to advance devious goals), 2) funding only right-winged projects, 3) law not applying to those who run huge businesses, and 4) controllling government while excluding the rest of us from it.

 

Of course both churches and labor unions find ways around these mechanisms. Churches rent out their facilities to third party entities which they don't officially support. Labor unions maybe just ignore it completely, since the regulation affects the contributor rather than the organization.

Churches do have a legal way to affect politics.

 

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913

....the Church at Pierce Creek ("Church") in Binghamton, N.Y., placed a full-page advertisement in USA Today and The Washington Times. The ad began with the heading: "Christians Beware: Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments." The ad cited biblical passages, and stated that Gov. Bill Clinton supported abortion on demand, homosexuality and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in public schools. The ad concluded with the question: "How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?"

.....

Among other things, the court of appeals noted that the Church had an alternative means of engaging in political activity because the Church could establish a related, separately incorporated organization under section 501©(4)* of the Code, and that organization could express opinions about candidates and even establish a PAC through which political contributions might be made. Of course, no tax-deductible Church funds could be used to support the political activities of the section 501©(4) organization or its PAC.

 

* Section 501©(4) organizations are exempt from taxation but contributions to them are not deductible.

 

Here's a link to different categories of 501©: http://www.taxfreecharity.com/types.htm

 

Note how religion's lumped in with charitable, non-profit, and educational organizations. So it's not just churches who get affected.

 

Strangely, unions just get lumped in with agriculture.

Edited November 3, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[swansont]

It's against tax regulation, but the purpose of that law is not to prevent churches from participating in the political process, it's to prevent non-profits from leveraging their tax exemption (which should equally benefit all Americans regardless of political affiliation) to favor a candidate or legislation.

 

IOW, it's illegal when a church does it.

 

The same regulation affects labor unions under 501©(6), but with a different (arguably less effective) mechanism.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200390

 

 

 

 

Of course both churches and labor unions find ways around these mechanisms. Churches rent out their facilities to third party entities which they don't officially support. Labor unions maybe just ignore it completely, since the regulation affects the contributor rather than the organization.

 

When a labor union does it and follows those guidelines, it's not "getting around" a regulation. Everyone is allowed to contribute money to an organization that campaigns for a candidate. What they can't do is use tax-deductible contributions to do so.

[JohnB]

Of course, in the case of unions in a closed shop environment, people are forced to contribute money to an organization that campaigns for a candidate.

[swansont]

Of course, in the case of unions in a closed shop environment, people are forced to contribute money to an organization that campaigns for a candidate.

 

I'm not sure that's the case in the US. I was under the impression that you can only be compelled to pay the portion of dues that goes toward collective bargaining and other non-partisan union activities.

 

edit: http://www.nrtw.org/foundation-won.htm

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, et al.

 

The Court ruled that compulsory dues for politics violates the First Amendment and that it is illegal to withhold forced dues from dissenters beyond the cost of collective bargaining.

…

[T]he Court followed Abood and held that union spending of forced dues for any purpose other than collective bargaining was illegal under the Railway

Labor Act.

[the tree]

Can't people just, like, not join the unions if they don't want to?

[imatfaal]

Closed shops are technically illegal - but Union Shops are acceptable in some states. A closed shop means employers can only hire Union members - a Union Shop means employees have to join the Union within a certain period if employed and only have to pay dues when covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In reality the closed shop still exists.

 

So to answer the tree - no you cannot refuse to join in some circumstances.

 

In the UK and other countries both forms are illegal - and whilst you can decide to join a union (except for very small exceptions), it is a free choice.

Edited November 3, 2010 by imatfaal

[jackson33]

From what I understand Jefferson specified one practical aplication of the first amendment in his letter (and BTW is there any reason to believe that it was NOT from Jefferson?). It is true that the precise wording are not in the constitution, though.[/Quote]

 

CharonY; Jefferson in trying to defend the intent of religious freedom, used the term 'wall', later Madison used the term 'line' and currently neither term is used. IMHO, I don't think either meant that Church and State were separable anymore than humans can make decisions void of their personal convictions, religious or not. Then actually Madison was involved in the writing of the Constitution and the selling of (Federalist Papers), while Jefferson was then in France. I was simply trying to offer a factual point, that there is "nothing" in the Constitution authorizing a literal separation, rather than the mentioned restriction of Federal Power to impose. I base this on the times, when the "Church of England" was the OFFICIAL Church of England and the opposition to that, to accomplish this then a secular Federal Government.

 

 

The guy was outside the boundary set up by the people in charge, to get to the polling place you pretty much have to run a gauntlet of people electioneering but this guy was particularly repugnant in his attitude of outing the liberal judges in general as though his word was the gospel on the subject. [/Quote]

 

Moon; As I recall you live in NC, the first link are rules for your State, if not correct the second link will take you to any State. I am puzzled by being accosted "several times, while in line" and the depth of the main conversation.

 

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-166.4.html

 

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-documenting-your-vote#NC

 

Can't people just, like, not join the unions if they don't want to? [/Quote]

 

Tree; In order to work in some professions, you "must" be a member of some union and in almost all cases this is required for Government Jobs. Some protection is afforded by State Law, in particular the "Right to work" States. In most cases, employers will allow a secret vote for the workers to join or not join a Union or in others it may be optional. At this time only about 7-10% of the private work force is unionized.

 

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Edited November 3, 2010 by jackson33

[Pangloss]

Yeah, and surely most ideologies have a different view of themselves compared to an opposing ideology's view of them. So?

 

So I think yesterday's election results show that not listening and casting aspersions has not been a good practice.

 

 

Pangloss, if you speak, and the news records what you said (context included), then the news didn't give you its own "newsy" version of the person. They gave you what the person really said.

 

You're wrong, ajb's correct.

 

Yes, it tells you what they said -- out of context and amidst a narrative that prompts crass overgeneralizations. Why is that okay when the left does it, but damaging and dangerous with Fox News does it?

 

 

Turns out we have actual research on the subject, conducted by a graduate student at UCLA.

Better question, though: is your assessment based on personal interactions with tea rallies, or just on detailed accounts?

 

I'm not the one drawing those conclusions. The researcher I was quoting attended the rallies and gathered the data herself. The conclusions were hers.

 

 

IOW, it's illegal when a church does it.

Churches do have a legal way to affect politics.

 

You two have fun with that. My point was simply that, in terms of influence, a special interest is a special interest.

 

 

Can't people just, like, not join the unions if they don't want to?

 

This is a Wikipedia article discussing "right to work" laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

 

22 states have such laws, and all federal government jobs are theoretically union-free, though many federal employees are represented by unions.

 

If we keep President Obama in office much past the recovery, I predict that such laws will come under heavy fire. They are pretty antithetical to the left, and I am no longer at all under any illusions about President Obama being a moderate.

[Moontanman]

Moon; As I recall you live in NC, the first link are rules for your State, if not correct the second link will take you to any State. I am puzzled by being accosted "several times, while in line" and the depth of the main conversation.

 

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-166.4.html

 

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-documenting-your-vote#NC

 

 

I think the local polling place had adhered to the letter of the law if not the spirit. I had to walk possibly 50 meters from where I parked my car to where the sign prohibiting electioneering was posted. From there it was possibly 10 meters to the door of the building where I was to vote. During that little walk I was stopped (I say stopped in the southern sense of the word, i wasn't physically held in place) 6 times by someone who was in some way trying to make sure i voted for their favorite candidate. Mostly it was handing out literature or asking you to vote for a particular person. One girl claimed her momma was running for judge , another implored me to vote for someone i wouldn't have pissed on if he was there in person and on fire but it was mostly harmless. The guy who called me a name was just an aberration, in the south such a thing is so unheard of it's difficult to assign real meaning to the incident. Generally most people pay very close attention to manners in a possibly inflammatory social situation in the south where I live. Possibly he was some one from up north who had only recently moved to the south and didn't understand mannerly behavior. .

 

So I think yesterday's election results show that not listening and casting aspersions has not been a good practice.

 

Yes but which side isn't guilty of that?

 

 

Yes, it tells you what they said -- out of context and amidst a narrative that prompts crass overgeneralizations. Why is that okay when the left does it, but damaging and dangerous with Fox News does it?

 

Get real pangloss, how could it be ok to lie, for either side? If you think it's ok to F.U.D. the other side to win then you are part of the problem not the solution.

 

 

You two have fun with that. My point was simply that, in terms of influence, a special interest is a special interest.

 

I think you misquoted me, i happen to agree with that.

 

 

 

 

This is a Wikipedia article discussing "right to work" laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

 

22 states have such laws, and all federal government jobs are theoretically union-free, though many federal employees are represented by unions.

 

If we keep President Obama in office much past the recovery, I predict that such laws will come under heavy fire. They are pretty antithetical to the left, and I am no longer at all under any illusions about President Obama being a moderate.

 

I used to be a union organizer, I tried to unionize my coworkers four different times when I worked for DuPont, but I am not a big fan of the idea of a Union Shop. There was a lot of covert secretive bullshit i was never comfortable with, it was sad the company decided to fuck over the employees the exact way the union predicted but then it was far too late.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

I think the local polling place had adhered to the letter of the law if not the spirit. I had to walk possibly 50 meters from where I parked my car to where the sign prohibiting electioneering was posted. From there it was possibly 10 meters to the door of the building where I was to vote. During that little walk I was stopped (I say stopped in the southern sense of the word, i wasn't physically held in place) 6 times by someone who was in some way trying to make sure i voted for their favorite candidate. Mostly it was handing out literature or asking you to vote for a particular person. One girl claimed her momma was running for judge , another implored me to vote for someone i wouldn't have pissed on if he was there in person and on fire but it was mostly harmless. The guy who called me a name was just an aberration, in the south such a thing is so unheard of it's difficult to assign real meaning to the incident. Generally most people pay very close attention to manners in a possibly inflammatory social situation in the south where I live. Possibly he was some one from up north who had only recently moved to the south and didn't understand mannerly behavior. .

 

This has happened to me in the past. Oddly enough, I didn't see a soul outside my polling place this year. But I have had similar experiences. Mostly they just stand there and smile and wave their signs at me, but I have heard comments and arguments before.

 

 

Yes but which side isn't guilty of that?

 

Both sides are equally guilty in my view. Though you wouldn't know that from reading posts here, where Fox News is the only thing standing in the way of Righteous and Scientifically Proven Progress for All Mankind Whether They Want it or Not.

 

 

Get real pangloss, how could it be ok to lie, for either side? If you think it's ok to F.U.D. the other side to win then you are part of the problem not the solution.

 

It isn't. It's not okay when it's the right declaring the peace movement subversive and unpatriotic, and it's not okay when it's the left declaring the Tea Party Movement to be racist.

 

[The Bear's Key]

So I think yesterday's election results show that not listening...

More like not paying attention to examples in history revealing what an effective lying/propaganda machine can bring (often in the way of thoroughly corrupting a government), along with its adoring followers not having a clue what's next....but resentful of those who haven't joined in before then.

 

 

Yes, it tells you what they said -- out of context and amidst a narrative that prompts crass overgeneralizations. Why is that okay when the left does it, but damaging and dangerous with Fox News does it?

Possibly you missed where I said "context included"? (NOT excluded) Wanna try again?

 

See, it's pretty easy to miss the little things which are most important to see what's really there -- and it's a very big clue to the election results.

 

 

I'm not the one drawing those conclusions. The researcher I was quoting attended the rallies and gathered the data herself. The conclusions were hers.

Except you did say "Let's take a look at how accurate that perception is" in response to ajb's examples of tea party lunatics.

 

Your assessment I had mentioned? It would be that sentence in quotes.

 

So again, is your assessment of whichever you meant -- the accuracy of the researcher, or, ajb's claim -- based on personal interactions with tea rallies, or just on detailed accounts?

 

 

...and I am no longer at all under any illusions about President Obama being a moderate

Lol sure, you have fun with that.

 

(to quote a certain mod)

 

It's pretty funny that supposed Independents claim Obama "mistook" his landslide election as a mandate for universal healthcare. But what's there to mistake? Did the independent voters miss Obama's promise of universal healthcare during his campaign? If so, did they expect Obama to read voters minds who elected him after they knew he promised to work on it?

 

No, the simple reality is they went and drank bad tea.

 

Steeped with lies.

 

The real tea, the real patriotic tea, happened in the New England states -- the liberal heartland. Today a new imposter of a tea brews in the South, the very ones who preferred Britain's rule and didn't wanna join the fight against her.

 

Why'd they prefer Britain rule? The more liberal northern colonies* sought freedom of religion, while the southern colonies had more Loyalists -- rich aristrocrats from England who preferred the status quo of the British system. And now the tradition continues, but with the South's true patriots hopelessly outmatched by another group that's loyal to the powerful elite.

 

Read your history....of the South's relation to England in colonial times, and, most interestingly....which part of the colonial U.S. had most of the rich Loyalists migrate to it from Britain.

 

 

P.S. It wasn't Moontanman you're supposed to be quoting, that would be meeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

 

P.P.S. Why did the so-called "Independents" also take six years to mass against Bush/Republicans, when immediately following 9/11 the nation's unity was (deviously) challenged by Karl Rove personally labeling the Democrats as Weak on Terror, labeling the U.S. justice system as wanting to give terrorists sympathy and understanding, etc, with the Republican Party joining in the chorus amongst its elected officials loud and clear, transforming 9/11 into a giant political opportunity for amassing their power.

 

A clue: the independents are nothing more than a collection of people with 1) voter apathy, distrusting every party like I did back in the day, 2) nonpartisan people having no idea what's going on but still influenced by propaganda they hear, 3) bandwagon voters who fancy the political label, or 4) truly independent people who do all the homework necessary on every candidate AND party leaderships including the shenanegans -- this last category is probably the fewest in number, unfortunately.

 

 

*The further up North you went in the colonies, the less slavery existed. The middle colonies (New York, Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware) had less slaves than the colonies in the South, but the least occurences of slavery were in the New England states: the liberal bastion of the U.S. today -- with friends in the West Coast and somewhat up North -- and the original, courageous, REAL tea partyers....who faced death or imprisonment if caught, and who dumped tea belonging to corporate interests protected by government via unfair tax breaks.

 

As you see, things don't change very easily. But it's not a coincidence the South is mostly a bastion of conservatism, nor that it supports powerful corporate interests wholeheartedly the very way it supported powerful Britain at a time.

 

Now you may see what's possibly coming next under the strategic pretenses of wanting to "take America back". The simple phrase has a double meaning, if you note. (for example, if Britain had uttered it -- or if descendents of its southern colonists' rich/powerful elite had)

Edited November 4, 2010 by The Bear's Key