The Watering Hole

Oh shit.... didn't mean that you were a idiot, i meant  overall. My bad.

I'd rather not get in the way of yours and Chargers discussion. I find it interesting.

it's ok dude, I was being a bit of a jerk with that, I'll admit. it was a cheap shot... but the analogy made me laugh so I went ahead with it (a pineapple... I mean, c'mon that's kinda funny, right? ;)) being called an idiot, if even mistakenly, is the least of my worries these days - feeling like one as I discover more and more bullshit... more of a concern.

I'm with you on constitutional originalism, no doubt. we have improved on it over time (slavery, as an obvious example) but there's no need to reinvent that wheel, I agree. adhering to it would be nice.

I guess the conflict on the use of "ideas" isn't really a conflict - I understand how you're using it now. I meant something along the lines of personal moral philosophy... those are the ideas running through my head these days so I didn't make the translation to normal usage appropriately before I posted.

Cool. :)

ironsheep — Aug 03, 2013http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0801/How-tea-party-and-its-unlikely-allies-nixed-Atlanta-s-transit-tax

one story doesn't prove anything, I know, but it's encouraging.

and it seems occupy was 2011, not 2010. my bad.

Well, there are two interesting things about this.  One is that in my reading, it doesn't seem like the tea party had anything to do with it.  The truth about tax initiatives is that voters will almost always vote them down.  No one ever votes to tax themselves more.  The only time I can remember one passing was in California, in the last election cycle, when we voted to raise our state tax.  But notably, in the time I've been voting here, I have seen at least 60 ballet propositions that would have raised taxes fail. Voters don't need any encouragement to vote against raising taxes on themselves.  They need a hell of a lot of encouragement to do the opposite.  The only reason we managed to pass a tax increase in CA was because of a tremendous PR effort, and everybody actually understanding how many people we would have to lay off if it did not pass, especially in education, public health, etc.

The second thing is, is improving the flow of traffic really a bad thing?  I understand that some people are truly opposed to any government intervention at all, but isn't it sometimes necessary?

While I'm not sure I followed everything you guys were just tossing back and forth, I will say this.  Essentially what ironsheep said is true.  No one really wants to throw out the government. They want to replace it with a government that does things you like, or does things you think make sense, or does things that agree with you philosophically.  The Tea Party wouldn't be arguing that the government was broken and needed to be reformed if the government gave tea partiers a 0% tax rate and removed all regulations in the way they ran their business, drove their cars, etc.  The tea party would LOVE the government.  

I've read the Constitution many times.  I'm not sure "getting back to the Constitution" is going to help.  Laws evolve for a reason.  There are no term limits in the original Constitution; the first term limit law was passed in the 50's after FDR.  The second article of the Constitution states that taxation and representation applies to all Free Persons, and everyone else counts as 3/5 of a person.  There's good reason that laws evolve. and that the Constitution does and should evolve.

BTW, ironsheep, my lightning-quick library reservation system got me that book the other day... I still haven't cracked it, since I had holds on 5 other books and three of them came at the same time!  If everything in government worked as well as my library... reserve online, get an email when it's ready, and for some books, I can just check them out on my phone...

I'm sure you're aware that the reason I posted the link was because of the tea party/naacp/sierra club "alliance" and how that relates to our previous discussion about a nation so divided. you don't think it's encouraging that people from diverse political orientations like that would talk to each other and work together, if only briefly?

I'd say in big cities, Atlanta, for example, it should be mandatory.

Speaking of Atlanta, check this out. Pretty good idea here, imo.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p01s02-ussc.html

charger — Aug 06, 2013While I'm not sure I followed everything you guys were just tossing back and forth, I will say this.  Essentially what ironsheep said is true.  No one really wants to throw out the government. They want to replace it with a government that does things you like, or does things you think make sense, or does things that agree with you philosophically.  The Tea Party wouldn't be arguing that the government was broken and needed to be reformed if the government gave tea partiers a 0% tax rate and removed all regulations in the way they ran their business, drove their cars, etc.  The tea party would LOVE the government.  

I've read the Constitution many times.  I'm not sure "getting back to the Constitution" is going to help.  Laws evolve for a reason.  There are no term limits in the original Constitution; the first term limit law was passed in the 50's after FDR.  The second article of the Constitution states that taxation and representation applies to all Free Persons, and everyone else counts as 3/5 of a person.  There's good reason that laws evolve. and that the Constitution does and should evolve.

There is good stuff in the Constitution. As is. If it's been changed, and isn't working, yes .... it needs to evolve back the way it was or at least be changed in a attempt to resolve the issues, and there my friends is a problem. That either doesn't get done or gets fucked up by politics, in the corrupt sense of course. I don't believe our founding fathers intended politicians be life long careers. As smart as they were, I think they never dreamed people would want to become, or actually make a living as a politician. I think they missed the boat on that one. Gave us to much credit for sure. ;)

ironsheep — Aug 06, 2013I'm sure you're aware that the reason I posted the link was because of the tea party/naacp/sierra club "alliance" and how that relates to our previous discussion about a nation so divided. you don't think it's encouraging that people from diverse political orientations like that would talk to each other and work together, if only briefly?

It's promising for sure, though I would hope people in general can have a lot of different political ideas, and still coalesce around one thing they do or don't like.  In general, you've got a 2/3 chance of defeating a tax bill right out of the gate, and it looks like Atlantans don't trust their government to spend money wisely already.  And these topics just intersect well--you've got tea partiers who don't want taxes, environmentalists who don't want stuff built, and a black coalition that sees the money benefiting white neighborhoods, all symbolized in one bill.

When I see a right and left wing party coalesce around, say, an idea to solve homelessness, or to feed the hungry, or to make public education better, or even to fix the healthcare system, something that's truly challenging, costly, and forward-thinking, I'll be blown away.

Hookbender — Aug 06, 2013[quote author=charger link=1374867480/100#104 date=1375822617]While I'm not sure I followed everything you guys were just tossing back and forth, I will say this.  Essentially what ironsheep said is true.  No one really wants to throw out the government. They want to replace it with a government that does things you like, or does things you think make sense, or does things that agree with you philosophically.  The Tea Party wouldn't be arguing that the government was broken and needed to be reformed if the government gave tea partiers a 0% tax rate and removed all regulations in the way they ran their business, drove their cars, etc.  The tea party would LOVE the government.  

I've read the Constitution many times.  I'm not sure "getting back to the Constitution" is going to help.  Laws evolve for a reason.  There are no term limits in the original Constitution; the first term limit law was passed in the 50's after FDR.  The second article of the Constitution states that taxation and representation applies to all Free Persons, and everyone else counts as 3/5 of a person.  There's good reason that laws evolve. and that the Constitution does and should evolve.

There is good stuff in the Constitution. As is. If it's been changed, and isn't working, yes .... it needs to evolve back the way it was or at least be changed in a attempt to resolve the issues, and there my friends is a problem. That either doesn't get done or gets fucked up by politics, in the corrupt sense of course. I don't believe our founding fathers intended politicians be life long careers. As smart as they were, I think they never dreamed people would want to become, or actually make a living as a politician. I think they missed the boat on that one. Gave us to much credit for sure. ;)

I'm not so sure of that, as a large portion of the people who wrote and designed the Constitution and the Declaration WERE life-long politicians who spent their entire lives thinking about politics and their new political society.  Jefferson was in politics for 40 years.

What is certain is they had no idea of the technological advances that would come in the future. The electric light was invented some 100 years after the Constitution was signed. Guns took 15 seconds to reload and were only accurate to about 150 feet.  Surveillance and counterintelligence was probably some guy hiding under a table or in a closet with really good ears.

charger — Aug 06, 2013

It's promising for sure, though I would hope people in general can have a lot of different political ideas, and still coalesce around one thing they do or don't like.  In general, you've got a 2/3 chance of defeating a tax bill right out of the gate, and it looks like Atlantans don't trust their government to spend money wisely already.  And these topics just intersect well--you've got tea partiers who don't want taxes, environmentalists who don't want stuff built, and a black coalition that sees the money benefiting white neighborhoods, all symbolized in one bill.

When I see a right and left wing party coalesce around, say, an idea to solve homelessness, or to feed the hungry, or to make public education better, or even to fix the healthcare system, something that's truly challenging, costly, and forward-thinking, I'll be blown away.

I sometimes have hope for this, but I usually think it's more of a nice dream. I'd be blown away too.

looking forward to your thoughts about that book.

Yeah, I'm reading that next, after I finish the latest Dan Brown masterpiece, which is so far pretty much shit.  But who knows, I still have 15 or 16 pages, it might get awesome all of a sudden.

;D ;D ;D