The Contrasting Psychologies OWS and the Tea Party

[Liberty1]

I agree with your take LR, but would add a point that Tea Partiers understand that defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the national govt and give it a higher ppriority.

Again, follow the Constitution

[Grim Reaper]

Again, follow the Constitution

Except where it can be ignored (separation of church and state is not very popular with the Tea Party) and where it can be amended (banning gay marriage).

[Liberty1]

(separation of church and state is not very popular with the Tea Party

Because it doesn't exist.

and where it can be amended

Which IS following the Constitution (as opposed to what's been happening the last several decades).

[Grim Reaper]

Because it doesn't exist.

Thanks for proving my point.

Which IS following the Constitution (as opposed to what's been happening the last several decades).

That's not following the constitution though. That's changing it to what you want to follow which is something very different.

[Lord Jim]

My "Draconian" cuts:

Close unnecessary military bases. (save billions)

Remove U.S. troops from Western Europe (USSR is dead), Japan, Okinawa, and Korea.

Structure the hierarchy and the ranks so that it looks like a pyramid, not a mushroom cloud.

End the existing "wars" immediately.

Problem solved.

Yes, most of that certainly qualifies as "draconian" in my book....a recipe for disaster in fact. (except maybe for dealing with brass heavy military structure, which Sec. Gates made a really good start addressing...as for closing "uneccessary" military bases, I'm all for that...but I suspect we have vastly different interpretations of what constitutes "unnecessary")

Not too mention naive, super-simplistic, and suicidally short sighted....

An approach that would warm the heart of George McGovern...

Yes, the USSR is dead, (thank you, Mr. Reagan) and accordingly, we have drawn down our troop level from 450,000 troops to about 60,000 . (Frankly I think this is a little low, given the change in direction Russia has taken in the pas decade; I'd like to see it back up in the 100,000 range)

A US European troop presence is essential, for a variety of reasons that include providing forward basing for rapid troop deployment in potential crisis areas in other regions, (like the Mid East) deterring resurgent Russian adventurism, (for which there is plenty of evidence) and meeting our general commitments to collective security under NATO. (Don't tell me, let me guess....you'd like to see us withdraw from NATO too.)

Your suggestions for US troop withdrawals in Asia, (particularly in Korea) would lay out the welcome mat for regional thugs (first among them the Dear Leader) to destabilize the entire region...


Likewise, your sophomoric "end existing wars immediately" suggestion would unleash complete chaos in a region of the world that is absolutely critical to the US economy. Let's send out the message that the US will no longer be engaged in the Mid East, and see what happens to the price of a barrel of oil

All three of these proposals send an horrific message to both our friends and our enemies,:"the US simply cannot be counted on; it is abandoning it's role in the world" that ultimately would come back to haunt us many times over versus whatever short term benefit or visceral satisfaction might be derived.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

This unholy convergence of philosophy between the neo-isolationist Buchanite faction on the right, and the defeatist, pacifist McGovernites on the left is without question the most unfortunate domestic political development for US security interests of the post Cold War era....

I fervently pray, for the sake of my country and its future, that this know-nothingism that seems to believe that we can tell the rest of the world to go to hell and somehow we'll be just fine and dandy never reaches the political strength needed to actually set policy...

If it ever does, if you think things are bad now...

These will look like the good old days, by comparison....

Again, follow the Constitution

Lib1, I can't begin to tell you how tired I am of hearing that phrase....

It is enormously disingenuous, since what the person using it really means, (left or right) is:

"Follow what I say the Constitution means"

That is what the phrase "follow the Constitution" has to mean, because much like the Bible, the Constitution, what it requires, and what it means, is open to multiple interpretation. (The Founding Fathers of course realized this; that's why we have a Supreme Court)

The phrase "follow the Constitution" has become nothing but a cynical rhetorical device by which the one using it seeks to imbue what is only their opinion, (or their opinion and the opinion of others who hold the same opinion) with an almost Canonical level of indisputable authority...

"Do what I say you should do, and you are following the Constitution"

"Do not do what I say you should do, and you are not following the Constitution"

That is the real meaning of that phrase....

And most recently it has been the tool of radical Randians who seek to delegitimize every bit of social legislation enacted since 1932 and enshrine Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism as the law of the land....

Every time I hear that sanctimonious self-righteous phrase come out of the mouth of Ron Paul, it's like finger nails on a chalk board. That wing-nut seems to think that "following the Constitution" requires that we allow people to pile up dead in the streets like cord wood, in the manner of some medieval village....

Thank God that the vast majority of Americans; Republican, Independent, or Democrat do not agree with this radical version of what "following the Constitution" means.

[Scooter]

[Scooter]

Now wait for the accusations that you are not a "real" conservative.

[Liberty1]

That's not following the constitution though. That's changing it to what you want to follow which is something very different.

No that is specifically following the Constitution, it specifies exactly how to ammend it (as I said as opposed to what has been happening the last few decades).

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for showing your ignorance.

[Lord Jim]

Well if I'm not, than neither was Ronald Reagan.

[Liberty1]

It is enormously disingenuous, since what the person using it really means, (left or right) is:

"Follow what I say the Constitution means"

That is what the phrase "follow the Constitution" has to mean, because much like the Bible, the Constitution, what it requires, and what it means, is open to multiple interpretation. (The Founding Fathers of course realized this; that's why we have a Supreme Court)

The phrase "follow the Constitution" has become nothing but a cynical rhetorical device by which the one using it seeks to imbue what is only their opinion, (or their opinion and the opinion of others who hold the same opinion) with an almost Canonical level of indisputable authority...

"Do what I say you should do, and you are following the Constitution"

"Do not do what I say you should do, and you are not following the Constitution"

That is the real meaning of that phrase....

What I mean when I say it is largely the context of the times, The Federalist Papers puts to rest a huge amount of "intepretation". The SCOTUS interpretation of the word interpretation has given it new meaning, nice how that works.

And most recently it has been the tool of radical Randians who seek to delegitimize every bit of social legislation enacted since 1932 and enshrine Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism as the law of the land....

Every time I hear that sanctimonious self-righteous phrase come out of the mouth of Ron Paul, it's like finger nails on a chalk board. That wing-nut seems to think that "following the Constitution" requires that we allow people to pile up dead in the streets like cord wood, in the manner of some medieval village....

Ron Paul is a nut case.

[Liberty1]

Regardless.

My whole discussion about was merely as I said to point out the 2 things the Tea Party is focused on, not to define what following the Constitution is.

1) Don't spend money you don't have

2) Follow the Constitution

[Scooter]

Which Grim Reaper corrected to:

1) Don't spend money you don't have.

Except on things that the Tea Party approves of.

2) Follow the Constitution.

Except where it should be changed to things the Tea Party approves of.

and which correction has been supported by evidence which no one has even attempted to refute.

[Liberty1]

and which correction has been supported by evidence which no one has even attempted to refute.

I can't believe you're really that dense.

[Grim Reaper]

Thanks for showing your ignorance.

You proved my point that the Tea Party will just "interpret" the Constitution to allow for whatever they can get away with and amend it for what they want stronger language for.

[Scooter]

and which correction has been supported by evidence which no one has even attempted to refute.

I can't believe you're really that dense.

On the other hand, it's entirely believable that you are, as you've proven once again.

[Liberty1]

I'm man enough and honest enough to admit that I am incredibly stubborn.

Are you man enough to admit you're an asshole.

[Scooter]

I have been an asshole many times.

When someone asks for evidence of an assertion and I provide exactly what they ask for is not one of them, however.

[dales]

I'm man enough and honest enough to admit that I am incredibly stubborn.

Are you man enough to admit you're an asshole.

When left without a leg to stand on, resorts to name-calling.

And your so-called "stubborness" has blinded you into a ideological black hole.

[dgs49]

There are WAAAAAAAAY too many issues floating around here to be covered in one thread.

However,...

Germany and Japan, and South Korea are perfectly able to fend for themselves. One reason why they are prospering is because they do NOT have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars doing what we are doing for them. A transition period of a year or two would be appropriate, but there is no reason why the U.S. should have anything other than a few advisors and some stockpiled equipment in Western Europe, Japan, or South Korea.

We are WASTING OUR TIME, LIVES AND MONEY pursuing a nonsensical dream in Afghanistan and the Middle East. They will never be "civilized" in the way that we intend. And the idea that the middle-eastern oil supply would dry up is absurd. These countries produce NOTHING that can be sold in the world marketplace except oil. Oil supplies may vary as one country and another undergoes the occasional blip, but even terrorist jihadi's need money. The ONLY reason we are over there is the disproportionate influence of the Jewish lobby in this country.

And I hate to mention it, but the U.S. has barely begun to exploit its energy reserves. Given a Federal government that does not have its head up its ass, North America (not to say the U.S.) could be energy independent within 5 years. Don't forget, in addition to almost limitless natural gas, we are the Saudi Arabia of Coal. Coal can be turned into motor fuel, and it would be economically feasible to build plants to do so at $4/gal, but nobody is willing to risk the investment (US$1B per plant) because of the regulatory climate in this country and because of the "global warming" scam.

The majority of U.S. military bases around the world are in existence for no reason other than there are a lot of people in the surrounding communities who depend on the jobs that the bases provide. They also provide billets for hundreds of thousands of military personnel, but there is no strategic reason for their existence. We are well beyond the point economically where we can afford to keep worthless enterprises in existence simply because people depend on them for sustenance.

To be entirely candid, this country should be following the Israeli lead as far as military service: conscript everyone for a year or 18 months; keep them in ready reserve until they are 40; maintain a small professional army and navy of "lifers."

The fundamental difference between the Tea Party's view of the Constitution and the "Progressive" view is that the Tea Party actually reads the fucking document, and the interpretive writings of those who originally debated and wrote it. Progressives believe that "Constitutional law" is interpretations of the interpretations of the interpretations of judges whose original intention was to distort it.

"Separation of Church and State" is Exhibit A. The Constitution merely states that we will not have a single ,Government-sponsored religion. There is nothing about a "wall of separation," or anything even remotely like it. The people who WROTE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION started each session with a prayer.

And yet, today's Progressives will have us believe that the Constitution prevents anyone in government, at any level, from mentioning religion. It is pure horse-shit.

[Liberty1]

There are WAAAAAAAAY too many issues floating around here to be covered in one thread.

Agreed, which was sort of my point with the OWS crowd, they have no central issue except their mad......... at someone. some people think it's WS that keeps them from making as much money as they want or keeping them from having a job. Sorry, that's just laughable in it's ignorance.