I think it was a member of the Virginia delegation maybe?

So if I don't like your positions on key issues I'm free to come over and blow up your family? :crazy:

Because the Congressman's brother and his in-laws certainly played no active part in his politics. So really it's no different than me blowing up your family in that regard.

You're fucking nuts. Batshit.

Actually, you're free to try to do so.

Of course, the rest of the story here is that it seems unlikely that the brother was actually the target of anything. Someone failed to do proper due diligence & posted the wrong friggin address online for the congressman. Mistakes like that should not happen.

And yet your morals are based on the teachings of Christianity? Sure you're reading the right Jesus Christ?

Hey, if Muslims can do it, Christians can do it!!!!!!!

****lights torch and heads for Dracula's Castle****

Again, not looking for a prolonged scripture quoting contest here but I'm guessing that passages such as "Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out" are not familiar to you.

So are you a bad Christian then for not going out and attempting to completely destroy DaddyTorgo, Jphillips, et al?

And I had to Google that verse - you're really quoting from the Old Testment (i.e. the Hebrew Bible) for guidance? Really? I don't know many Christians that would attempt to do that. In Christianity, Jesus came and gave the new message, the new word. You don't have to be a slave to the old law any longer. Do you also refrain from eating pork? Or follow all of God's awesome laws from Leviticus? Do you offer animals as sacrifice?

Christianity is a pretty cool religion when practiced properly. But it's not consistent at all with the Old Testament (or hate, or intolerance). My Lutheran pastor father would admit that.

Do or do not...there is no try. If I was amoral enough to undertake the effort to slaughter your family...there would be no try. It would be done.

(Note that the above is not a threat - I'm not about to come after you or your family Jon. It's more of a...illustration of a point. I'm not an amoral person who considers myself to be living outside of the Social Contract. Unlike you, I recognize that violence has no place within civil society.)

Again though, we're still back to "Oh it's okay if it's the Congressman but not if it's his brother." You're still batshit crazy.

You probably should go off and join a militia group. Or move to some little war-torn African country where you can impose your will through violence and strength, since that seems to be the methodology that you endorse.

Because unfortunately for you, that's not the way we do things here.

Doubtful, as by your own admission, you lack the will (or willingness) to do so.
Saying "if I was willing to" is kind of like "if I could fly then ...".


Speaking of which, did ya see where the Oklahoma legislature is likely to introduce a bill (next year apparently) to formalize the legality of a state militia?


See Revolution, American

The ballot box is generally cleaner & causes less property damage so it is currently the generally preferred option. It is by no means the only option.

Politics is fucked up.

Even more so here in the Philippines.

Maguindanao massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because I restrain myself from doing so does not mean I lack the will or the willingness to do so. I'm just not a savage. If I had to I would, without blinking an eye. You think that makes me weak - I contend that makes me intelligent.

I knew you'd bring up the American Revolution, so thanks for walking into that. Did you really think I'd leave that out there without a response to it?

That was over 200 years ago. Anybody with half-a-brain recognizes that times are vastly different now than then. The machinery of war, the devestation caused by war both across and down through a society are immensely more massive now than they were when a bunch of farmers picked up their single-shot hunting muskets and marched across empty fields.

Really, trying to argue that because there was an American Revolution 230+ years ago that we should have a second revolution today is an absurdist argument.

In addition, that was a revolution due to taxation without representation. I've got news for you - as pissed off as you are about things - you're still being represented.

I think we should draw the line at armed violence against political opponents... while it seems like a bunch of monkeys are running the show, this is at least theoretically not a banana republic yet.

I think you are confusing rebellion with criminal behavior... if you feel strongly enough that a new nation is required, you pick up arms and try your best, but you are basically forfeiting any rights you have as a civilian of the United States in the process. You start shooting down there in Georgia don't be claiming your second Amendment rights, you man up and claim you are at war (with all the costs that it entails).

You don't want a rebellion though, you want to strut around like a rooster and sqwuak real big. There are criminals, terrorists, and combatants... and you are trying to justify your claims as if you are a combatant, but the bullshit you are spouting is lucky if it crosses the line from mere criminal thug behavior into terrorism, yet alone revolution.

To play both sides, technology doesn't preclude revolution. If things really did go off the deep end, I'd be the first one arming up and trying to take down the state. The difference between me and Jon is I know and mean what I'm saying, and as a result wouldn't spout it off every time I want to shut up a damn dirty liberal or conservative on a relatively minor point.

The cost of war (particularly in the modern day) is huge, but if we had to choose between playing it safe and having everything taken from us by a dictator or risking everything to have at least the chance at ruling ourselves, I think you will find a large number of people will get in that fight. Even the relatively soft and sheeplike American populace of today.

There's not a whole lot of Christ in Jon's Christianity. He'd be better off as an ultra-orthodox, Jewish militant.

To be fair, there are more reasons than just taxation without representation for which to have a revolution. But the flip side of that is that you'd better have a cause for which the results of the revolution are less and more just than the cost of the revolution.

SI

So taxes are up, gas is going higher, and Target has never had low prices. Sounds like we're a TV show cancellation away from a revolution.

In related news, even Oprah looks good if you apply enough makeup.

Really? I didn't realize we were free to engage in criminal conspiracies and attempted murder/assault! Wow. I think I've found a whole new hobby!

*chucks OOTP11 out the window*

Just for pictoral perspective, my view of the economy:



SteveBollea's view of the economy:

So basically MBBF's view of the economy is to steal bandwidth by hotlinking from sites that prohibit hotlinking. Very revealing.

Ummmmm, both pics are displaying just fine for me. I'm guessing you have a firewall issue if they're not displaying correctly. If the first picture is the one not displaying for you, consider yourself lucky. :D

technology doesn't preclude violent revolution. that's not what i'm trying to say. but it makes the costs and negative effects of it that much higher, thus making it much less likely.

I'm saying that you're putting lipstick on a pig with your assessment (No, Oprah, I'm not saying your a pig...................)

fail.

first photo is a yellow square with red text "picture stolen from celebritysmackblog.com"

Actually the picture is showing fine for me.

odd

First picture is Oprah looking bad and second is Oprah looking "good". Must be a right/left picture blocker. ;)

Odd. I don't see that on mine. I just pulled it off Google Images. I subbed in a fresh photo for those that really need to see it minus the 'stolen' label. It's a much better look anyway.

weird. ah well. :lol:

To balance the statistics from earlier:

Quote:

A new national poll suggests the Democrats have improved their position in this year's battle for Congress, but they still have quite a way to go before their majority status in the House of Representatives could be considered safe at the ballot box. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday indicates that if elections for Congress were held today, 50 percent of the public would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district, with 46 percent supporting the Republican candidate. That's a switch from CNN's last poll, conducted in late March, when the GOP had a four point advantage. The margins are within the poll's sampling error.

I wonder what the % on each side that are dissatisfied with their respective parties are because they are not far enough to the right/left?

I can damn well bet that because they are dissatisfied with the direction of the party doesn't mean they will be switching sides. I'm just not sure how significant that segment is.

i wondered the exact same thing!

Well, our bad fiscal policies might destroy the dollar.... so I wouldn't count my chickens on the low prices angle. You might think an economy can run on magic and debt forever, but look no further than the commodity bubble we had just a couple years ago if you want to see what can happen. We might bitch and moan about $5 gas, meanwhile their are frickin famine riots in other countries where a grain bubble means they can't eat.

There is always a probability of catastrophic failure or corruption of our government, however you may be right about a good number of sheep will just sleep through the collapse of the US... until it hits crisis point where you can't ignore it. Its foolish to assume a totalitarian government is going to keep your prices low and Dances with the Stars on the air... once they are in they're gonna enjoy grinding people into nothing.

Cuts both ways under your system... if technology reduces the propensity for revolution it likewise increases the ability of a government to oppress. The moment we assume we can't revolt due to cost, is the moment the government can extract whatever the hell they want from us as long as it is less than that cost. Revolutions are based on principle... the American Revolution wasn't 'Well I stand to make a profit of 20 pence per ton under these taxes, but if we were a free nation I could make 50 pence per ton!'... its a bunch of people pissed off about the principle of taxation and willing to take on a war that cost more of them far more than they would ever gain from freedom.

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with you that the American Revolution was primarily emotional rather than logical and financially-driven. Certainly for the merchant-class it was hugely financially-driven.

I think that's open to debate, but there was certainly a large enough cast of influential characters for there to be many many motivations, and I don't want to get into an argument over which one was more dominant, because frankly I don't think there's enough 18th century sociological history (certainly not enough that I've read) that would enable us to attempt to quantify the drivers of the American Revolution.

I think you misunderstand my point too - I wasn't talking about dollar-cost of revolutions, but rather about the cost in terms of human lives, long-term devestation of economies and societies, etc.

This. No one is going to do squat because we don't have real problems. Revolutions occur when a country has nothing to lose.

Half our country doesn't even care enough to vote. They're more concerned with American Idol and who Paris Hilton is dating. They spend their weekends kicking back beers watching football and tracking their fantasy team. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's a country that doesn't have a lot of big problems. No one here is willing to give up their life because they're upset insurance companies can't deny you for pre-existing conditions on individual plans.

It's all just internet tough guy talk. Just like the war in the Middle East. How many people were demanding we blow them all up but were too pussy to enlist and do it themselves? Sure there are a few fat slobs who will dress up and play war in the backwoods, but put them face to face with a real military and they would shit their pants.

People simply have too much to lose and not enough to gain to start any kind of revolution.

One important thing you're missing. It's people who have nothing to lose. They weren't coming home to a 47 inch HDTV with millions of porn videos a fingertip away on their computer. They didn't have an XBox 360 and iPhone. They didn't have basic vaccines, medicines or a life expectancy over 70 years.

Even those who fall under the poverty line are considered "rich" by global standards in this country. Rich people dont' fight wars they don't have to because they have too much to lose.

Give terrorists access to free, unlimited porn. They'll never bother us again. This has been obvious to me for years.

I think the general impression at the time is that the Americans were going to get clobberred. They also had a percent of the population that were loyalists... some active, but most passive. There is no rational argument for the American Revolution.... no calculation that can define when it was a net positive decision to take such a risk.

I don't like the idea that the exact same situation back then doesn't apply today... like modern times are somehow magic and that there is no lesson to be learned from history. If the same conditions occur as back then, a sizable portion of America considers itself powerless to control its life, say the Republicrats suspend all elections and institute martial law on a whim, then I would hope there is enough backbone left in this country to take up arms and do the right thing. The cost of doing so has always been great, to say technology is a barrier to doing so is a weak argument in my opinion (for instance, it could be the military itself that rebels against such a corrupt government, negating or even taking over the technological advantage, unless you assume American soldiers are mindless drones of government desire).

The reason Americans should feel they won't revolt is because they believe they can impact the country's policy through elections.

Yes, but assuming that our standard of living is somehow fixed is a fallacy, what interest is there for the dictator to make sure everyone has an Xbox 360 and a 40 hour work week with generous vacation? Dictators only care about their standard of living, and they will extract from the sheep to get it. If they are clever they allow for some level of comfort, but their greed or the lack of productivity usually gets them in the end (numerous third world examples).

I'm not denying that there is a threshold of abuse that populations are willing to take. But allowing the abuse guarantees that over time you are going to lose quite a lot. They'll keep on taking the more you let them, until it breaks, its the nature of man as much as it is their nature to be sheeplike and selfish (and at times heroic).

Represented? Or represented effectively?

As for the whole cost vs willingness argument, as much as I hate taxes/love my XBox/etc & et al, those are not the things that are my primary driver, nor do I believe they ultimately are for those who would make up the bulk of the initial forces if the ballot boxes ultimately prove ineffective.

What does "ultimately" mean? When do you think the breaking point is?

He's smart enough not to be like some of those religious cults that name the day when the world will end.

Best just to be vague and say it's coming soon.

Introducing the President of The United States of America, Reggie Ball.

The ballot boxes have proven effective. Hell, the fucked-up Bush v. Gore election was more of an argument for the ballot boxes not being effective than this latest election. You're just going all "Internet tough guy" because your side was unsuccessful in this latest round at the ballot boxes, and frankly, you're too much of a self-centered, spoiled brat to deal with the consequences of that on your everyday life instead of sacking up and just dealing with it like the vast majority of the population does (correctly so) when things don't go there way. Hell, Democrats after Bush v. Gore had more of a reason to whine than the right does now, and yet the whining from the right continues.

Instead of sitting on here ranting about how you want to bring down the government maybe you should go out and get involved in local politics or fund-raising for candidates or something along those lines.

Here's what I hope comes of this tea party movement. There is no question that a lot of nutjobs come out of the woodwork when you start getting closer to a possible war with the government, but I think a majority of these tea partiers (60-70% of them… about 15-20% if the country) are not nutjobs but people with regular jobs or recently fired who actually have been awoken to the amount of money the federal government spends. I think next fall they will mostly cave at the last minute and vote Republican, falling for the "Lesser of two evils" formula. But the big question is what happens when the Republicans start spending too? Do they go third party? 2012 may be another Ross Perot like year if the Republicans win big in this fall's elections. (I will still vote third party here in Missouri but am not holding out much hope of an independent with maybe 1% of the votes in the Senate election)

I think you're dreaming if you think they'll ever vote Libertarian panerd. Farrrrr too socially liberal for them.

Yeah that and the war really are sticky points with a lot of those guys, aren't they? It doesn't really make sense how the spectrum is set-up and why there are so few on the other two sides. Maybe the names we give them? (Arachist, totalitarian) I dunno. Wonder if there could ever be a Democrat that would be for individual rights but actually against the war? I think in the current scheme of things I could vote for that.

I think you're wrong on this. The Tea Party stuff that Ron Paul started was what you mentioned, the Tea Party stuff now is just far-right sheep. These are the same people that didn't give a shit when Bush expanded Medicare. If Sarah Palin was signing this health care bill in to law, it would be "smart".

These people are not anti-government, they're anti-this government.

Umm ... I've got a (US) Rep. I'm quite happy with, the Sen. isn't going anywhere no matter what I do, and more locally there's no chance of electing anyone with a brain since we foolishly let non-residents students vote in city/county elections. And I'm still trying to reach conclusion on the state level races myself, with no absolutely firm choice for governor for me yet. (there's warts or potential warts on pretty much every candidate).

Something like 80 to 85% of them identify as GOP or independents that lean GOP.

Pretty much.

Jihadi Cool: Terrorist Recruiters' Latest Weapon | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

I agree and disagree. I definitely don't think these guys are fiscally responsible all that much. (They seem to be outraged at government spending but have no problem with trillion dollar wars and "jobs" bills) I do however think they are sick of a lot of the Republicans as well. (It's a given that they hate Democrats) I agree with both of you that at heart they are ultimately GOP and will vote that way in the fall. But when the GOP starts spending (they are politicians, they will) I think that some of them will really see that Washington is broken and it could be enough to actually form a third party.

No doubt that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are not Ron Paul and Gary Johnson but at least we seem to be moving away from the religion nonsense that Bush took to another level. I guess I am just holding out hope while still knowing it realistically is not going to happen.

I fundamentally disagree. I think Bush used the religious rhetoric in his speeches a lot to play to his base, but then wisely did not follow through on too much of it.

On the other hand, I see us moving towards increased use of that religious rhetoric, and I don't think that the next person who uses it to gain power will be pragmatic enough not to let it influence them.

Well, I can speak only for myself but politics (especially federal politics) was very far removed for me until the Teri Schiavo debacle. IMO (an important distinction because I am sure some hold the exact opposite view) that moment to me was the most despicible use of federal power I had ever seen. I make no bones about being an athiest but I also respect people that are religious and keep it away from me. That to me was the point of no return. Even though I often come across as very anti-Obama and anti-liberal I am think I am really anti-government and Obama just happens to be in power. If he actually followed through on what should be liberal views (end war on drugs, end meddling in Middle East, keep religion out of politics) I would probably vote for him.

I agree that the Schiavo debacle was a massive...debacle, for lack of a better word. It was also (if you look at the statements by Republican leaders at the time) purely a political game to them in order to play to their base, rather than actual genuine concern or belief. Fucking disgraceful.

It's amazing how bent out of shape Republicans get about having a Democratic President, considering they've had the Presidency a lot more than the Democrats in the past 40 years.

Entitlement! Not just for poor black folk.

Maybe I'm off here (stop acting shocked), but I think for the most part that Obama is just a convinient punching dummy for people. The real frustration for most judging from reaction lies in Congress on both sides of the aisle. There's a lack of real leadership and self-control in both chambers right now. Obama's just one person and can only sign what's sent to him, even if he does advocate for some of it.

I'm not sure I'd call it a lack of leadership and self-control, but I think you're right that the real frustratino for most people lies with Congress. And there are a bunch of things people are frustrated with. In order to keep this post simply "I agree with MBBF" I'm not going to go into listing all of them here now, but I think both sides are frustrated with both sides of the aisle.

Broadly-speaking:

Democrats: Frustrated in the lack of (D) leadership and the inability to get legislation passed with historic levels of support. Frustrated with some of the compromises and backroom deals (not all compromises are bad). Frustrated with (R) for "taking their ball and going home" and refusing to be partners in governing the country and only focusing on impeding (D) efforts to do so.

Republicans: Frustrated with (D) policies (as the party in the minority typically is - although I would add that current (R)'s have taken this frustration to historic extremes, and it's really quite ridiculous). And I honestly believe that there is a subsection of Republican voters that are frustrated in (R) obstructionism and want to see the (R) party offering up alternatives and working within the system to try to effect change rather than just obstructing. Maybe that's me being foolish, but I honestly think there is a subsection that feels that way.

These never get old.........

Some of them may have an issue with Obama:

The Santelli rant would fit in nicely.

I was wondering if anyone had done a follow up with Peggy Joseph to see how life was for her now that she gets her gas free and doesn't have to make mortgage payments. Did a search but didn't find anything.

Dola........

Thought our resident Libertarian might be interested in these poll numbers, though it's still a long ways off.

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41% - Rasmussen Reports™

That poll has more holes than Bushwood Country Club.

The assumption that Paul is the sole opposition in a race 2 1/2 years from now I think is a big enough hole. It makes for some fun discussion and little else.

I'll defer to Nate Silver of 538.com for the analysis of this one...
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Romney, Not Paul, Fares Best in '12 Matchups

Look at the crosstabs. The Not Sure number is very high and the GOP approval number is very low. This may be a decent picture of dissatisfaction with Obama, but the level of support for Paul is illusory.

It's a fair analysis, though he's certainly not saying that the poll results are inaccurate in any way. In fact, he specifically states that the Rasmussen assumption of voter turnout for 2012 may or may not prove to be correct. He just personally believes that the turnout should be weighted differently than Rasmussen.

Regardless, it's silly to get too worked up over the poll. The 2012 election is WAY too far away. That's 2 1/2 years for any/all of the involved politicians to screw something up.

Interesting that Obama loses to "Generic Republican," but beats every named Republican.

Sounds about right to me. If the Republican Party could nominate someone half-decent they'd definitely have a shot at my vote.

edit: Though I guess that makes sense, as Generic Republican pretty much becomes whatever you want it to be.

It's a poll about something that's happening 2 1/2 years from now. Anyone who takes it seriously even if it were based on the best polling logic ever is wasting their time. More than anything, I just wanted to get panerd's feedback on the possibility of a good run for Paul if things fall right.

I think it's a good indicator of the disfavor with the current president rather than someone actually liking a Republican candidate.

The Republicans will obviously end up nominating some clown like Romney or Palin but maybe Paul will decide to go 3rd party and make things really interesting. I think in the past he has always said he runs as a Republican and he uses the debates as an avenue to get his message out (that he wouldn't have as a 3rd party candidate) but with numbers like those they may have a tough time excluding him for the debates if he ran as a Libertarian. The Republicrat machine/corporate media would try and troll out the racism claims from the late 1970's if this happened but I still think it would be an interesting ride. (And maybe the death of the Republican party since Obama would almost certainly win in that 3 person scenario)

Notwithstanding the accuracy of that poll or anything...he wouldn't have numbers anywhere close to that if he ran as a Libertarian. I think he'd struggle to break 5% (a number not based on anything, that i just pulled out of my ass).

.

The Republicans can't stand Paul because he actually stands for the principles of their party. Just like the Democrats try to distance themselves from Kucinich when he speaks out against the war and bank bailouts the Republicans can't handle a guy that has actually done in his politcial career what they will campaign that they will do (even though none of them have when given the chance) in the fall elections. I don't get the hatred of Paul from the voters right but it easily understood why corporations would hate the guy (thus the immediate press to counter any positive Ron Paul article or event)

No doubt. Ultimately we will see the Democrat and Republicans both getting campagin contributions from all the usual suspects (AIG, Goldman Sachs, defense contractors, health insurance, etc) while the Libertarian candidate is all individual contributions. You would think the public would see right through that ("Goldman Sachs contrbuted to both McCain and Obama and nothing to Barr?") but they don't teach critical thinking in schools anymore.

* I still think he may be enough the way this country has been split 50/50 to influence an election though.

Well, people have followed up with Santelli and he's still against support for homeowners and still silent on the bailouts that were handed out to his industry.

I agree with both of your points in this post. I'd likely vote Kucinich for President though, so I gather I'm probably not your average "Corporate Democrat"

In that case I wonder which side he draws more supporters from? Republican I'd guess?

Yeah I am not talking about informed voters (i may disagree with a lot of people in this thread but still feel like every one of them has 1000 times the knowledge of the average voter) I am talking about the corporate national parties that tell all of the people who to vote for and who "has no chance".

I would think Republicans. It seems like in past elections that the contention has been the Green Party steals Democrat votes and the Libertarian steals Republican votes. Though I tend to think of this as more of a trick to convince people to vote for one of the two parties.

I will say that I voted for Barr but probably would have voted for Obama next. (Probably wouldn't have voted at all but you get my point) I think endless war and horrible Draconian social policies do more damage than the worst economic ideas. Of course I also am a teacher and am not pulling in 200K+. (and Obama doesn't seem to be doing much on the war front or even on basic civil rights issues)

Did I miss this or forget about it? Must have. Good Lord, that's fantastic. :D

Gross oversimplification IMO, and I can show you why.

Using the Ron Paul Wiki entry as a quick reference point to Paul's positions that are contentious

"Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent nonintervention"
Not the stance of a party that I've been aligned with in recent years.

"Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution"
Not the stance of a party that I've been aligned with.

"During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions."

"In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba"
Not a stance that I agree with (although some in the party certainly do)

Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment
Not a stance of a party that I've been aligned with

Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens.
Not a stance of a party that I've been aligned with.

Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage,
Not a stance of a party that I've been aligned with (in practice if not in theory)

I could keep going pretty easily but hopefully the point I'm aiming for has been made.

For all the stuff Paul gets right & he definitely manages to do that at times, he also gets a ton of stuff wrong, and it's those things that make him subject to so much criticism. I believe he too often operates/votes/acts in a theoretical world where state's rights are firmly recognized instead of acting within a world where they've been shredded while advocating for their restoration. That's probably not a great explanation of the distinction I'm trying to make but hopefully I managed to get it across anyway.

Basically war issues are what you are different on. (Can't argue with you on this) The rest (abortion, gay marriage, federal spy bureaucracies, etc) Paul just says are issues for the states, which is what Republicans will say for things like health care when it is to their advantage but not for others. So basically he isn't inconsistent like the rest of your party is? I guess you could say that isn’t your party, but not sure I understand why this is a good thing?

(I do get what you are saying about state's rights being less and less meaningful nowadays, but that doesn't make it right)

That's really a key distinction though, about the reality we operate under vs the one we wish we operated under.

Ideally, I'd prefer a country where laws governing various things weren't necessary, but I don't have that so I have to deal with the cards that are dealt. I can advocate to reach that state but until it exists I have to work with what I have.

Ideally, I'd prefer states being left to deal with these issues as they see fit but that isn't how things work today (nor in a long time), so I have to use the tools that are available to me to accomplish the desired ends. I can advocate to reach that situation but until it exists I am nowhere near ready to sacrifice the desired end simply because the means are imperfect.

The problem that Republicans have with Ron Paul, is that he believes in limited government whether the party is in power or not.

I agree with you more than you might think. I think Libertarians often live in their own little world sometime where they think 1800's Deadwood can exist in 21st century America That is why I said I would rather have a socially liberal president than an economically conservative one because I know they won't change any of the outrageous spending but they could actually impact some social issues.

But doesn't not voting for Paul because he is "kooky" and in favor of outdated state's rights basically cause state rights to erode even more and the power of the federal government to continue to grow? So his idealism is costing him votes and in effect also making things even worse?

I'm sure people will find it hard to believe, but this is why I am a Democrat - social issues. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially very liberal. I long ago came to grips with the fact that the two main parties are both corporateist though, and neither one of them will truly reign in spending (although Clinton did there for a brief shining moment balance the budget...god what I wouldn't give for him and that again), therefore I'm left to vote primarily based on social issues, so my vote inevitably puts me in the (D) category.

A fairly reasonable question/point afaic but then again, short of a full-blown "revolution" (be that at the ballot box, armed insurgency, whatever) leading to a thorough restructing of the federal government I don't anticipate those rights ever being restored to any remotely sufficient degree.

It kind of relates to what I've said at least a couple of times in the past IIRC, essentially that the Constitution is so bastardized at this point that it's practical function has been reduced to being a tool, just another means to an end. And I'm quite a bit more concerned about the ends than the means.

Poll: Most Find Their Income Tax Fair - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Just ahead of Tax Day, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that most Americans regard the income taxes that they will have to pay this year as fair, regardless of political partisanship, ideology or income level.
Sixty-two percent of all respondents in the poll said the income tax they have to pay is fair, while 30 percent called it unfair. That includes six in 10 Republicans and independents and just over two-thirds of Democrats – a display of cross-party agreement rarely seen on any topic. It also includes most liberals, moderates and conservatives.
Majorities across all income groups, moreover, called their income tax fair. Sixty-two percent of Americans in households earning $50,000 or less said so, as did the same percentage of people in households earning more.

another cbs/nyt poll

Polling the Tea Party - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism -- but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.
Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of them either benefit from Social Security or Medicare or have somebody in their immediate family who does. And about one-third are directly beneficiaries at least one of the programs, compared to about one-fifth of the population at large

Some other highlights from the poll (NYT, CBS):

• 18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.
• 66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)
• 73% say they are conservative.
• 41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.
• While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.
• 89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.
• 59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)
• 63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.
• 66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)
• 24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.
• 52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.
• 84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree (remember: 18% are tea partiers).

So lemme see here, 47% paid none but think that's "fair". What a shocker.

i was looking more at the 62% that think it's fair, and also the cross-party and majorities across income group numbers as interesting Jon.

Although I agree...paying none and being satisfied isn't exactly a shocker.

I definitely think there's something broken when we're abusing our currency with extraordinary public debt and I'm a homeowner, make $50k+, and pay $0 income tax. That's unfair, but really to the country moreso than me personally.

I'll end up paying a little bit next year, but not much. Paying much more would certainly be "fair" - though since the federal government can spend hundreds of billions that they don't have, I'm not sure why they need any of my, or anyone's tax money.

In that way, I don't think there's too much corelation between taxing and spending. I don't think raising taxes equals any real corresponding increase in government services, and vice versa.

Interesting that only 41% of tea people think he's a citizen. I read in the news about some Lt. Col. who is a bronze star awardee refusing to deploy because he believes Obama isn't a citizen, and thus not allowed to give orders as commander-in-chief. This must be the highest ranking birther in the services...totally whack.

Speaking of taxes, here's Obama's tax return. Nothing controversial here, I'm just find tax returns that are 63 pages longer than mine kind of interesting.

And it must be awesome to be a best-selling author. You can earn $5 million for work you did years ago.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...ete-return.pdf

My father-in-law still gets royalty checks for a science text he stopped updated more than a decade ago.

Obviously I haven't been paying attention but of the 47% that do not pay income taxes, are you saying that they do not get FICA taken out of their paychecks?

His view on Medicare are retarded but his views on Social Security aren't all that bad.