"Liberal" congresswoman tells Tea Party to "go straight to hell"

[Jim in CT]

Tea Party Group Slams Rep. Waters Over 'Straight To Hell' Outburst | FoxNews.com

This is an influential Democratic congresswoman, who essentially runs unopposed every 2 years. This, from the party that claims to be open-minded and inclusive?

Look at the vitriol, the hate, that comes from the left. The vice president calls the tea partiers terrorists. They make a commercial showing Paul Ryan pushing old ladies off a cliff, because he's courageous enough to admit that Medicare needs to be fixed.

Conservatives want to talk about the merits of ideas. Liberals preach hate, because God knows they can't talk about the validity of their platform, which can be summarized thusly..."gimme, gimme, gimme!"

If a conservative thinks homosexuals will go to hell, they are labeled hate-mongers. When Maxine Waters wants tea partiers to go to hell, she gets a pass.

Look at the people of influence in this party...one hate-filled, repugnant degenerate after another. And their ideas are laughable to a 10 year-old.

And here in CT, we lose to these people. I don't get it...

[Jim in CT]

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Senator Thurmond was a mentor and close friend to my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& who was an air force pilot during the early forties to the mid-seventies. My uncle previous to pressurized cockpits had blown a hole in his sinus cavity down through the roof of his mouth during a dive in a plane. While he was on the mend and thinking of not continuing in the air force he met Thurmond at the Univ. of Tennessee where my uncle was pursuing a (admiralty) law degree, which he did get.
Thurmond pursuaded uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& to stay in the service which he did. My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

While my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& was in law school in TN. during his hiatus from the air force while healing he started a flying school on campus there that #^&#^&#^&#^& said in 1995 still existed. I can't say my uncle believe in Thurmonds racist views. He never seemed bigoted to me. He was truly a very intelligent fellow.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Actually what he said was "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

It was a pretty bad gaffe, although one I don't think he intended. Actually, I thought Trent Lott was a pretty good guy.

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

Anyway, Obama's only theme during the campaign was "change". If all he could promise was "change", then he doesn't get to defend himself by saying that's "politics as usual".

WHen a Republican said something offensive, Bush called him on it, in public, saying that stuff had no place in public service. When Democrats do the same thing, Obama is silent. That is, when he's not the one doing it, which he does often (the Cambridge police acted stupidly, Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus, conservatives are holding the economy hostage, etc...).

I yearn for November 2012...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

I don't think there's parity between the two comments, it has nothing to do with party.

-spence

[rphud]

Both/all extremes got to go now.

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Who votes for these idiots anyways? I think they need a good talking to.

[RIJIMMY]

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

she's not alone

"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term president," Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said at a Miami town hall with constituents.

Rep. Frederica Wilson blamed "racism" for the high black unemployment rate on MSNBC yesterday.

[Duke41]

The tea Party will costs the republicans the next election. Repbus are looking for a moderate. Dont see to have one. Milt has healthcare in Mass hanging over his head and Perry comes across as a christian fanatic. I would take Bill Clinton back in a second.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Duke41

Repbus are looking for a moderate.

this is great...George Will today..."Questions for Repub. Candidates"

For Jon Huntsman: Your chief strategist, John Weaver, says the “simple reason” the GOP is “nowhere near being a national governing party” is that “no one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.” Do you share your employee’s disdain for the party? Although you say the country is “crying out” for a “sensible middle ground,” you have campaigned for three months on what you say is that ground and, according to the most recent Gallup poll, your support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents is 1 percent. Are the other 99 percent cranks? Should the cranks be cranky when the Democratic National Committee distributes your attacks on Republicans under the headline “Don’t Take Our Word For It”?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How much more power do the wealthy have now than in the past? Isn't there a point of diminishing returns of power when you reach a certain level of wealth?

I think you'd have to look at historical situations and not just one measurement. Today, I see the numbers showing dramatic wealth growth in the past three decades among only the top 4% and ask why and what's the impact?

If elected officials are overly influenced it's because they are corrupt, it's not because the sytem is "out of whack." That the system is "out of whack" is not because of influence, but because it has been, to a great degree, abandoned. As I said above, our Constitutional system, as do most others, requires virtue. Not only do "officials" lack virtue when they are "overly influenced," but they are corrupt when they subvert the Constitution--the law by which they are granted authority. And the corruption of influence far more easily reaches ALL when it reaches us through an overly powerful Central Government rather than having to go through 50 sovereign States where it may well not be the same play.

I'm sure a lot of bad decisions are made with plenty of virtue. Is a Republican representative from Ohio who advocates spending for jet engines the military says they don't need lacking virtue? Perhaps they're just trying to create jobs for their constituents.

While I'd agree that breaking up influence among the states has merit, I'd also think the influence of large multi-national corporations -- who's revenues exceed many state governments -- could potentially be worse at the state level.

Were that it were so. The Federal govt. has, through its false "interpretations" of the Constitution, garnered the power to dictate to business in ways never intended and ways that are not a product of business, but of ideology.

...or observation. Many regulations are a response to abuses of the public trust.

Always was and will be. Virtue and Constitutional governance will not belay this process, nor will unconstitutional Centralized governance which, actually, makes this corruption more far reaching and effective.

And why I usually advocate a balanced approach.

The Tea Party does want to reform our unconstitutional mode and devolve power back to the States and the people. I don't know of a Tea Party push to "destroy" Social Security. Reforming it is not destroying it. Those who have it now will have it. For the rest, if it is not reformed to a self-sustaining insurance program, it will self-destruct under its own impossible weight. Tea Partiers are not against effective and responsible Federal govt. They believe it is most effectively responsible when it acts within its granted powers, and that it is illegally irresponsible when it governs outside those powers. That is not destructive or radical, it is responsible and legal. All this blather about deficits and taxes to pay for them is giving power to illegal confiscation to pay for illegal debts. An excuse for the expansion of government thievery. And the notion that only the Federal govt. can stop pollution is absurd. It is the Federal govt. that is strong-arming the consumer with its illegal regulations and mandates (e.g. health care mandate).

My assertion is that an overly aggressive move to limit the Federal government (ideologically) given how our current Government operates will serve to further concentrate power and wealth resulting in less power for the people.

The Federal govt. has been an intrinsic part of this mix with its regulations and mandates. It certainly has fostered greater numbers on poverty with those regs and mandates.

Certainly?

Reaching for it and creating it are not the same. It must be created before it can be reached for, you can't reach for something that doesn't exist. How you reach for it depends on you and your ability. Most are able to get a job within a wealth structure, which redistributes some of that wealth. Some can create collateral entities that tap into that wealth structure. These create needs for infrastructure, expansion of services--more gas stations, food marts, housing, etc. The lower rungs generally not only have the ability to "reach for it," but are a necessary adjunct to the process.

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

The individual States provide for 90 percent of the cost of education. The portion that the Federal govt. provides is not for education as much as it is for the opportunity to mandate and regulate. The States, without the Central interference, could create a more diverse array of systems that could influence each other. If the idea that "the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed" by a Central power is not frightening, it is certainly restrictive. The "marketplace" needs to be unleashed, for good or ill, to most effectively create and distribute wealth.

Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better off.

We were well on the way to becoming the most powerful nation before the Constitution was corrupted. It is not "precisely" because of that corruption, but because the Constitution assured the individual freedom to create that power.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.

I thought that so much of how we live today was a system "out of whack" which is not the "fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatlsm is woven from." Education is not outside the thought of conservatism. Where did you get such an idea?

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated? I'd call it neo-conservatism but that name is taken.

-spence

[scottw]

let's update liberalism and progressivism as well...how about Counter-American

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you'd have to look at historical situations and not just one measurement. Today, I see the numbers showing dramatic wealth growth in the past three decades among only the top 4% and ask why and what's the impact?

What does this have to do with "the continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power"? What is the impact? Is there more "power" after a certain amount of wealth is achieved? Does limitless wealth achieve limitless power? Are the super wealthy responsible for the National debt and budget deficits? Are they bribing "officials" to go into debt? Don't super wealthy people and politicians get convicted and jailed on such counts of collusion? And how has the Federal Government's unconstitutional grab of power stopped this? Hasn't this dramatic wealth growth occurred during the Federal Government expansion?

I'm sure a lot of bad decisions are made with plenty of virtue. Is a Republican representative from Ohio who advocates spending for jet engines the military says they don't need lacking virtue? Perhaps they're just trying to create jobs for their constituents.

Yes, a lot of "bad decisions" were made because Congressmen and Presidents and Supreme Court Justices thought they were acting "responsibly." Or because they were looking out for the interests of their constituents. Yet, rather than being restricted by Constitutional limits, you prefer that the Congress and the Executive are allowed to do whatever they deem "responsible." If they act Constitutionally, they are limited in power to act and, for the most part, the electorate has the power to remove them. When the Central Government assumes powers Constitutionally delegated to the States and the People, it is not possible for States in the minority to avoid the illegal imposition cast on them by Representatives of States with the majority of electoral votes. Often the majority of States are ruled by a minority against rights granted to them by the Constitution. Even more egregious is the unconstitutional creation of regulatory agencies that have plenary power to create de facto legislation against which none of the people have the power to reject. All in the name of acting "responsibly."

While I'd agree that breaking up influence among the states has merit, I'd also think the influence of large multi-national corporations -- who's revenues exceed many state governments -- could potentially be worse at the state level.

Again, the equation of money and power. Actually, it is the States that are granted police power by the Constitution. That power and the power granted to individuals by the Constitution can combine to allow such corporations to operate beneficially to the State--far more so than the Federal Government dictating where and how they can operate.

...or observation. Many regulations are a response to abuses of the public trust.

Again, the States are closer to the public trust in their communities than the Federal Government. The powers reserved to the States by the Constitution better serve them in responding to their public trust than the Federal Government dictating to their local publlic from afar and with differing agendas and interests.

And why I usually advocate a balanced approach.

How does a nebulous, non-existing balanced approach make it harder for lobbyists to approach the Central government than it would be for them to approach all the individual States and their communities? It seems that it would be easier to bribe or influence a few than many.

My assertion is that an overly aggressive move to limit the Federal government (ideologically) given how our current Government operates will serve to further concentrate power and wealth resulting in less power for the people.

Again you refer to Constitutional governance as "ideological." You'll have to explain that concept. The unconstitutional way our current Government operates does serve to further concentrate power and wealth. Such power and wealth concentration furthering has occurred during expanded Federal power. And the concept that greater government power results in greater power for the people also needs to be explained.

Certainly?

Yes.

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

Yes, but most are not capable of or not interested in reaching for real wealth. Those that are create the wealth that others tap into. Come on Spence, India and China! We were blessed with a tradition of English law and a culture that fostered business. But we also were born as a country into individual freedom and responsibility and a culture of business and free enterprise. And we rejected Britain's protection and defunct government subsidized colonial companies. India and China have much culturally and pollitically to overcome in order for their people to produce individual wealth. And China is funding its economic growth on its hugely imbalanced trade with us and by inviting corporations to set up shop there under its conditions including a majority of Chinese managers to run the operations and the transfer of technology to those managers. If China grants the individual freedoms we originally had to its citizens, it might economically swamp us, especially if we continue to overregulate and control our population.

Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better of

Any change in attitude toward "their own poor" has mostly occurred as a result in overall societal change. Progress does occur. Federal politicians aren't more humane that State pols. The Feds did come from the States. See Scott's comment below for how better off Fed spending has made the poor.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.

I know it as well as you don't. Besides, being the strongest nation in the world is not the point of Constitutional Governance. At the time of the Revolution, Britain was the strongest nation in the world. We preferred our freedom and our Constitution to Britain's strength.

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated? I'd call it neo-conservatism but that name is taken.

-spence

Labels can be pointless. Your "so much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from" is mysterious if not pointless. Is neo-conservatism that mundane fabric? Didn't you say in another thread that conservatism meant to conserve? How does accepting a current norm become conserving? Don't norms change? I would think that a conservative, one who conserves, would conserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and its form of government.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;888127
Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better off.

-spence[/QUOTE]

no, I'm pretty sure it goes mostly to teachers and unions, those "underpriviledged" areas have some of the highest per student costs as well as the poorest results....they are failing...

but at least the feds have taken on the responsibility of feeding ALL students in these "underprivledged" districts...otherwise we might have massive student starvation on our hands

For Immediate Release
June 22, 2011

Illinois selected to Expand Access to Free School Meals for Children in Need
Community Eligibility Option provides free lunch and eliminates household eligibility applications in high poverty schools
SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois State Board of Education announced today that Illinois was one of the first three states, along with Kentucky and Tennessee, selected for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s launch of a universal free meal option that promises to expand access to free breakfast and lunch to all students in schools with high percentages of low-income children. Preliminary estimates show that more than 1,200 public schools in Illinois could be eligible to participate and provide free meals to more than 500,000 students across the state at the onset of the 2011-12 school year.

“This option eliminates some of the paperwork for schools with a high percentage of students from low income families and ensures that all students have access to the nutrition they need to concentrate and learn in the classroom,” said State Superintendent of Education Christopher A. Koch. “Parents will not have to fill out duplicative forms and children in need will have access to healthy school meals without being singled out for receiving a free lunch.”
..................

"It's great that President Obama cares so much about us and our children that he has taken on his shoulders our most daunting tasks as parents which include such difficult and tiresome responsibilities like filling out forms and feeding our children, God Bless Obama....Hope and Change is real, and it is happening!!!" Anonymous Obamoron

"4 More Years....4 More years!!!!!"

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated?

-spence

No need to update as it always means the same, "keep what's good."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

Choosing China as a perfect example of wealth creation may explain why you seem to prefer large centralized government to a federally dispersed republic in which government is by consent of the people and in which individual freedom is the source and object of power. China may be trying to mimic capitalistic free market methods to raise standards of living, but it is doing so in a very top down controlled way. If we in the US were "allowed" to "reach" for wealth via the Chinese government's method, it would not only quash consolidation of wealth, but severly limit the distribution of wealth to "the people." And if the "spirit" of America was government subsidy, we may well have never got to a point where the government was wealthy enough to distribute subsidization. And now that it is, I suppose you think it would be wise to mimic the Chinese method.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.


-spence

Yes, I believe rather than know that individual freedom is the driving force of our power. I believe that power derived from government control creates strong governments, not strong people. Our Revolution broke from the history of government over people to government by the people. I believe that is what catapulted America to superior economic power. We could have comfortably remained within the monarchy, but we preferred freedom, and that changed the world. And the true strength of our system is not merely economic, but our greater control of our own lives, which makes us, of necessity, a stronger people. And as long as we are jealous of that freedom, we will willingly band together to protect it. But as we gradually give over our individual power to the collective power of government, we become individually weaker and the government becomes stronger over a weaker country. And the weaker we become as individuals, the greater becomes the siren call of that stronger government to "subsidize" us. Maybe we can become more like China.