Tocky on 21/10/2010 at 05:04
Quote Posted by Renzatic
What's scary is that these normally intelligent people are just shouting what they hear on talk radio. There's no real thought behind it. They just parrot what they hear.
They aren't called ditto heads for nothing. Who would have thought our once proud nation of free thinkers could be brainwashed by corporate shill demogogues who shout about our constitution not being followed while not knowing what the damn thing says.
O'Donnell is the poster child for the tea party. She claimed there was nowhere in the constitution where it said anything about seperation of church and state. Palin is just better at keeping her ignorance behind her teeth. I fear for our nation of easily lead idiots.
Pardoner on 21/10/2010 at 05:22
Quote Posted by Cokehead
I'm a pretty hardcore liberal.
I'm suddenly credulous enough to swallow anything you say! Well met, fellow traveler.
Xorak on 21/10/2010 at 05:48
I might be crazy, and be considered an enemy to many Americans, but a socialist-democacy is a step forward of the economic-democracy. There's a lot of room for error in socialism, but it comes down to the people having and using the responsibility of adults rather than becoming children of the state and just whining about what they should have but too scared to do anything about it.
Cokehead on 21/10/2010 at 06:35
Quote Posted by Tocky
O'Donnell is the poster child for the tea party. She claimed there was nowhere in the constitution where it said anything about seperation of church and state. Palin is just better at keeping her ignorance behind her teeth. I fear for our nation of easily lead idiots.
Well, technically, the constitution doesn't directly say that there is to be a wall of separation between the church and the state. The phrase, however, is borrowed from one of the authors of the constitution - I think it was Jefferson, but I can't be arsed to look it up right now.
It does, however, say that the government cannot "prohibit or respect the establishment of religion" - or something pretty close to that. The SupCourt has read this as a wall of separation of the two, which seems reasonable.
I really don't understand why these asshats question it anyway. So, let's say the constitution doesn't establish a secular government - does this mean that we can establish a state religion? By what process do we do this? Do we hold a vote, see which religion gets a majority, and that becomes the state religion? What happens to the unbelievers? Are they righteously smote?
The reason secular governments work is that the alternative is a very, very slippery slope to something like Iran or Saudi Arabia. The extremists take over, leave the moderates alone, and kill everyone else. History shows that the only moral government is a secular one - or, at least, that is one of the basic requirements. You can't establish a state religion without severely hampering people's rights.
But, of course, the God-Fearing Christians that would dictate the rules of this nation wouldn't do that, says the Teabagger. To which I call bullshit.
rachel on 21/10/2010 at 07:02
Part of the problem I think is that you have this separation of Church and State backed up by 200 years of jurisprudence, but on the other hand you also still have swearing on the Bible in courts and elections, office chaplains etc., and since Einsenhower's presidency, the mention of God on your money and Pledge of allegiance. That muddies the water quite a bit and makes it easier for opponents to argue the wall isn't really there and there's already a built-in bias towards Christians...
Compare with France. Not setting it as an example, but comparatively, it's completely secular. No mention of God or religion whatsoever. It's forbidden. You're free to follow any religion you like, but if you're in a position that represents the State or the Law, it is illegal to show it.
That said, it didn't prevent our good king Sarko the 1st to be best buds with the Pope, so I guess it only applies to the worthless masses... :erg: But previous presidents respected this and were pretty discreet about their faith if any.
Fafhrd on 21/10/2010 at 07:19
Quote Posted by Cokehead
Well, technically, the constitution doesn't directly say that there is to be a wall of separation between the church and the state. The phrase, however, is borrowed from one of the authors of the constitution - I think it was Jefferson, but I can't be arsed to look it up right now.
It's in the Federalist Papers, which were published anonymously but are generally attributed to John Adams and (iirc) Alexander Hamilton. And they were written as expanded explanations of the Bill of Rights so that the public had a more solid idea of what those amendments were all about. The Separation of Church and State was very much the intent of 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion.' (And seriously. Wikipedia is, like, a click and a half away. You can't look up the First Amendment?)
And do you know why you absolutely
shouldn't vote for a Tea Partier? Because two years of these dipshits attempting to repeal health care and Wall Street regulatory reform, privatizing social security, switching us to the gold standard, and whatever the fuck else is two years too long. Yes, the President can and likely will veto any of that shit that gets through, but I'd rather he spent that time actually attempting to do something constructive, instead of creating the campaign ads for his opponent in 2012 ('Tea Party Senator X tried to lower
your taxes so that you could fill up the tank of your SUV and buy your family a deep-fried moose for dinner. President Obama said "NO." Senator X tried to take
back the money that President Obama gave to the fatcats on Wall Street. President Obama said "NO." Senator X tried to shut down the death panels. President Obama said "NO." Vote for Senator X. We need a president who says "YES," to America.')
Muzman on 21/10/2010 at 09:20
I suppose you folks have read the (
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904) Rolling Stone thing already. It's pretty cool none the less.
Some find his opening tone somewhat one sided, but the stuff about the evolution of the 'party' and the people in it is pretty fascinating.
We've done this sort of thing already here. Only it kinda happened the other way around. The One Nation kooks rose up and looked like getting some power, so the Liberals did their best to distance themselves from them while co-opting all their policies (and then did everything in their power to destroy the party itself). I used to say we should vote for One Nation too, back when they were popular. Just because it seemed that until we put them in some position and watched them completely fuck everything up we'd never hear the end of this crap. Luckily that wasn't necessary.
The Tea Party is kinda different, since the Republicans are using them as a stalking horse rather than wrecking them completely. That's probably what the Dems should start saying: a vote for the Tea Party is a vote for the Republicans (provided the TP supporters who clame to hate both parties equally constitute any sort of useful number).
Kuuso on 21/10/2010 at 12:08
I didn't realise the tea part is as big as it is, something like 10% of US citizen belong to it? That's quite a lot. Then again, HC righties are on the rise everywhere at the moment (well not Asia). Most goverments in Europe are lead by right-winged parties at the moment (including Finland) and extremely right-winged parties have gained a lot of ground lately, be it Finland, UK or USA.
I think the tea party is a healthy thing for US politics. You twats (sorry) have voted for two parties (or abstained from voting) for ages. They don't differ from each other really. For some reason US citizen seem to think you HAVE to vote for either one of them or your vote is invalid. That's why your politics seem weird to us Europeans (or us nordic people more precisely) sometimes, because we can choose from multiple parties that can get into the goverment instead of just chilling at parliament with one seat. That's why your green policies are behind times as well.
Anyways, if tea party keeps on growing, it might force the larger parties to put a stop to it. Hopefully that means actually good policies. Then again, the tea party leadership is prolly even more corrupted than the two parties so dunno.
TLRD; vote Lib dem.
Mortal Monkey on 21/10/2010 at 12:36
Quote Posted by Kuuso
Most goverments in Europe are lead by right-winged parties at the moment (including Finland) and extremely right-winged parties have gained a lot of ground lately, be it Finland, UK or USA.
Here in Norway, even the right-wing parties are liberal.
CCCToad on 21/10/2010 at 13:31
I'm a teabagger myself......when I play Halo.
