The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That depends ... who was the Congressman?

More importantly (although it isn't nearly as good as a one-liner), what was the brother's role in the Congressman's life & what were his (this brother) positions on the various key issues?

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?

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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****

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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 ...".

You probably should go off and join a militia group.

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?

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

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.

[Neon_Chaos]

Politics is fucked up.

Even more so here in the Philippines.

Maguindanao massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[SportsDino]

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.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The truth is, as long as they could still watch Dancing with the Stars, prices at Target stayed low, taxes didn't get raised, and gas didn't get much higher, a significant chunk of America wouldn't care if the entire Constitution was eliminated and a totalitarian government was established.

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Taxes aren't going up for 95% of the population, I was talking $5/gal gas, not the normal cycles, and Target has lower prices than many places. But, nice try at a comeback there.

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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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*

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just for pictoral perspective, my view of the economy:



SteveBollea's view of the economy:

[flere-imsaho]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

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.

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, I don't know how me making a statement about the likelihood of people paying attention to political changes turned into my view about the economy. But hey, whatever.

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

fail.

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

[Dr. Sak]

Actually the picture is showing fine for me.

[DaddyTorgo]

odd

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fail.

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

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fail.

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

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

weird. ah well.

[DaddyTorgo]

To balance the statistics from earlier:

The Republican Party may have a big election year anyway, but Americans sure don't think much of it or its leadership.
Only 28% of voters in the country say they approve of the current direction of the GOP with 51% disapproving. Even among voters who identify with the party just 54% say they like where it's headed. It's predictable that Democrats would give it very low marks but even among independents just 18% think the Republicans are headed in the right direction while 49% dissent.

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.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

To balance the statistics from earlier:



[/indent][/indent]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lungs

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!

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Taxes aren't going up for 95% of the population, I was talking $5/gal gas, not the normal cycles, and Target has lower prices than many places. But, nice try at a comeback there.

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.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

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.

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.

[molson]

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

[SportsDino]

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.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[panerd]

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)

[DaddyTorgo]

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

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

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 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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

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)

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