Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[YBORCITY]

Aren't most of these Tea Baggers retired? While they were battling against Gov't run Healthcare most of them are on MediCare anyways - shouldn't they be against MediCare too? I wonder how bad they would all howl if that was repealled?

 

[nathan1977]

which is why we have a judiciary designed to protect minorities from mob rule.

Actually, the judiciary was designed to protect the large majority -- the unprivileged, the poor, the lower classes -- from dictatorial rule by the small minority -- the wealthy, the privileged, the culturally and intellectually elite.

So if anything, the judiciary is designed to make sure that the minority fulfills the wishes of the majority.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually, the judiciary was designed to protect the large majority -- the unprivileged, the poor, the lower classes -- from dictatorial rule by the small minority -- the wealthy, the privileged, the culturally and intellectually elite.

So if anything, the judiciary is designed to make sure that the minority fulfills the wishes of the majority.

you're thinking in terms of population. it's power vs. powerless, so those with power cannot remove rights from the powerless, no matter how unpopular they might be. numbers are irrelevant here.

 

[nathan1977]

you're thinking in terms of population. it's power vs. powerless, so those with power cannot remove rights from the powerless, no matter how unpopular they might be. numbers are irrelevant here.

Actually, they're not. The revolutionary notion in American politics is that power resides where it should -- with the voters. With individual people who each carry a fundamental voice that deserves to be heard. And if enough of those people agree on a course of action...

Or is there a ceiling above which the voice of the voters shouldn't carry?

 

[Irvine511]

Or is there a ceiling above which the voice of the voters shouldn't carry?

the rights outlined in the Constitution?

again, representative democracy isn't mob rule. enough white people could agree that every Thursday is Bash-A-Faggot Day, and even pass a law, and that still wouldn't make it remotely Constitutional.

 

[maycocksean]

Put this:

Actually, they're not. The revolutionary notion in American politics is that power resides where it should -- with the voters. With individual people who each carry a fundamental voice that deserves to be heard. And if enough of those people agree on a course of action...

Or is there a ceiling above which the voice of the voters shouldn't carry?

and this:

the rights outlined in the Constitution?

again, representative democracy isn't mob rule. enough white people could agree that every Thursday is Bash-A-Faggot Day, and even pass a law, and that still wouldn't make it remotely Constitutional.

together and you have a proper understanding of the American system of government.

 

[BVS]

The Mad (Republican) Tea Party - CollegeHumor video

 

[INDY500]

which is why we have a judiciary designed to protect minorities from mob rule. the unpopular have ever right that the popular do. this isn't high school.

Originally posted by nathan1977
Actually, the judiciary was designed to protect the large majority -- the unprivileged, the poor, the lower classes -- from dictatorial rule by the small minority -- the wealthy, the privileged, the culturally and intellectually elite.

So if anything, the judiciary is designed to make sure that the minority fulfills the wishes of the majority.

I always thought justice was blind so as to rule without regard to power, money or influence.

Oh well.

 

[maycocksean]

I always thought justice was blind so as to rule without regard to power, money or influence.

Oh well.

Justice is blind to those things in terms of not being influenced by them. However there would be no justice at all if it were completely unaware of them.

 

[nathan1977]

again, representative democracy isn't mob rule. enough white people could agree that every Thursday is Bash-A-Faggot Day, and even pass a law, and that still wouldn't make it remotely Constitutional.

Absolutely. But anyone who confuses or equates the long, slow, laborious process of putting an issue on a ballot, campaigning around said issue, getting the vote out, and winning (or not) an election with mob rule is generally naive. Mobs give no credence to laws or the democratic or legislative process -- they function in spite of (or in angry response to) laws, not because of them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Didn't the Klan reinforce racist laws which had been given democratic and legislative sanction?

 

[Benji2112]

Aren't most of these Tea Baggers retired? While they were battling against Gov't run Healthcare most of them are on MediCare anyways - shouldn't they be against MediCare too? I wonder how bad they would all howl if that was repealled?

sadgjkgjdgj <----- head hitting keyboard .

 

[Irvine511]

Absolutely. But anyone who confuses or equates the long, slow, laborious process of putting an issue on a ballot, campaigning around said issue, getting the vote out, and winning (or not) an election with mob rule is generally naive. Mobs give no credence to laws or the democratic or legislative process -- they function in spite of (or in angry response to) laws, not because of them.

and those long, slow, laborious processes are for naught if the law passed strips someone of rights that are already enumerated in the Constitution. voting on my civil rights, or anyone else's, is precisely mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, and it is unconstitutional, and that's why we have the courts so that i don't get stepped on by said mob even if nobody likes me very much.

you're being far too literal about the term "mob rule."

just because it doesn't look like this ...

... doesn't mean that it's not about the same thing.

 

[nathan1977]

Didn't the Klan reinforce racist laws which had been given democratic and legislative sanction?

Actually, the Klan had a relatively brief period of popularity in the 1860s -- formed in the South response to the Emancipation Proclamation and the aftermath of the Civil War -- but was virtually extinct by the 1870s, when the federal government began prosecuting them. The Klan didn't return to national prominence until after D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" in 1915, but by 1930 was once again defunct. The third wave of the Klan was created in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, as well as the Civil Rights Act. They're a great example of what I'm talking about -- a mob that operates outside the law because it doesn't agree with said laws.

 

[nathan1977]

and those long, slow, laborious processes are for naught if the law passed strips someone of rights that are already enumerated in the Constitution.

It's always frustrating when a representative government doesn't see a particular matter your way. (And, in the situation to which you refer, a perceived right that so far has been ruled by the judiciary not to be shrouded in the national constitution, is not recognized federally, and has had a decidedly negative legislative history from state to state.) It's certainly your right, as it is the right of every American, to advocate, vote, demand change, etc. -- but to equate this:

with this:

is fear-mongering, plain and simple, and doing so with a right that is fundamental to every American, and that makes our democracy unique -- the right to vote, and the right to a government that responds to that vote.

you're being far too literal about the term "mob rule."

You're the one equating "mob rule" with "tyranny of the majority."

 

[maycocksean]

Actually, the Klan had a relatively brief period of popularity in the 1860s -- formed in the South response to the Emancipation Proclamation and the aftermath of the Civil War -- but was virtually extinct by the 1870s, when the federal government began prosecuting them. The Klan didn't return to national prominence until after D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" in 1915, but by 1930 was once again defunct. The third wave of the Klan was created in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, as well as the Civil Rights Act. They're a great example of what I'm talking about -- a mob that operates outside the law because it doesn't agree with said laws.

It's no coincidence that the Klan disappeared in the 1870s at the same time that Reconstruction ended and the southern states were finally able to enshrine racism into law . The Klan had clout--at least during Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement--when blacks were making real progress in becoming full participants in our democratic system.

The democratic system HAS been abused in the past.

As I said, earlier both you and Irvine are correct. The real question you arguing is over whether the current issue of gay marriage is civil rights issue or not.

 

[Irvine511]

the right to vote, and the right to a government that responds to that vote.

why do you think we have an electoral college?

 

[Irvine511]

The real question you arguing is over whether the current issue of gay marriage is civil rights issue or not.

racial segregation was certainly very popular among southern voters well into the 1960s, and there were certainly many politicians who sailed into office on the back of championing continued segregation -- after all, this was the will of the people, and in a representative democracy, one as unique as ours, it is the will of the people that determines what the laws should be. as history has shown, laws are never overturned by a judiciary -- the will of the people! -- especially not popular laws, because the popularity of a law determines it's justness.

indeed, most Americans get the right to vote on the laws that are before Congress -- we voted on everything from TARP to the invasion of Iraq. and people are elected on the basis of doing what's popular. the will of the people is never wrong, because that alone creates reality.

 

[nathan1977]

most Americans get the right to vote on the laws that are before Congress -- we voted on everything from TARP to the invasion of Iraq.

Sarcasm aside, both TARP and the invasion of Iraq have been and are core compaigning issues in recent elections. Politicians who were on the (real or perceived) wrong side of those issues will be voted in or out. So the people do indeed have a voice on those matters.

the will of the people is never wrong, because that alone creates reality.

No one is saying that. However, our system of government is one that allows for the people to make their own corrections and adjustments. It's the fundamental system of self-governance. I would prefer to keep that power in the hands of the people... as opposed to, say, advocating that some vote(r)s are more equal than others. We've already been down that road.

But maybe I have more faith in the voters than you do.

 

[Irvine511]

But maybe I have more faith in the voters than you do.

i agree. you appear to think that the will of the voters should trump the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the decisions of the judiciary. you do, indeed, trust the people more than i do.

which is especially odd coming from a California voter.

 

[nathan1977]

i agree. you appear to think that the will of the voters should trump the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the decisions of the judiciary.

But we're not talking about a situation that has yet been found to trump the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the decisions of the judiciary, are we?

Sean's right that there is an inherent tension between our two perspectives on government -- that tension between legal precedent and principles of self-governance. This tension has allowed the system to endure. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, I suppose...

 

[Irvine511]

But we're not talking about a situation that has yet been found to trump the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the decisions of the judiciary, are we?

we're talking about many situations, not only limited to California, from Prop 8 to Prop 187 to Brown vs. Board of Education to Dred Scott to the presently very popular Arizona 1170.

laws must be constitutional, and we elect people to make policy, we don't vote on policy itself. many laws have been challenged and found to be unconstitutional, regardless of their popularity or the will of the people.

i don't think there's a tension. i think you're being deliberately obtuse about the system and falling back on "founding fathers" and "trusting the people" cliches. -- which, notably, is the last remaining non-animus argument the NOM people have on the Prop 8 issue, as all other arguments were demolished by Olsen/Boies in Schwarzenagger vs Perry.

since we're talking about the FF, i'll offer some Thomas Jefferson:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[nathan1977]

I like Thomas Jefferson quotes too. Here's one:

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."

I also rather enjoy, "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right."

There is indeed a tension between principles of self-governance and representative government. At what point does the gap widen to the point where a government is no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? For many, the last eight years illuminated just such a widening gap between the governors and the governed; they and we are now reaping the result.

Government ignores the will of the people at its peril. For, to repeat another quote from that anachronistic old Founding Father you mentioned, "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

 

[Irvine511]

when i was in high school, we voted to make all the kids with red hair wear signs that said: KICK ME, I'M A GINGER.

it was awesome.

i mean, some of them cried, but whatever. we voted. and they were only 5% of the population.

 

[BoMac]

.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Posted on Sun, Jul. 11, 2010
NAACP considers resolution decrying racist elements in tea-party movement

By JUDY L. THOMAS
The Kansas City Star

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will propose a resolution this week condemning racism within the tea party movement.

The resolution, scheduled for a vote as early as Tuesday by delegates attending the annual NAACP convention in Kansas City, calls upon “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

NAACP leaders said the resolution was necessary to make people aware of what they believe is a racist element within the tea party movement.

“I think a lot of people are not taking the tea party movement seriously, and we need to take it seriously,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City chapter of the NAACP. “We need to realize it’s really not about limited government.”

Russell said she was “pretty certain” the resolution would pass.

Tea party leaders deny that the movement is racist and said the resolution is unfair.

“I just don’t see racism in the tea party movement,” said Brendan Steinhauser, director of campaigns for FreedomWorks, which organizes tea party groups. “Racism is something we’re absolutely opposed to.”

“The NAACP has more of a political agenda now, but I would hope that they would appreciate the fact that the tea party movement has a lot in common with the civil rights movement. I’m personally inspired by what the civil rights movement did, and I want them to know that.”

Among the charges lodged against the tea party in the resolution:

•Tea party supporters have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.”

•Tea party activists have used racial epithets, have verbally and physically abused black members of Congress and others, and have been charged with threatening public officials.

Tea party supporters also have a distorted view of race relations, the resolution says, citing poll data that found that 25 percent believe that the Obama administration’s policies favor blacks over whites, and 52 percent believe that “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people, compared with 28 percent of the general population.

 

[BVS]

“I just don’t see racism in the tea party movement,” said Brendan Steinhauser, director of campaigns for FreedomWorks, which organizes tea party groups. “Racism is something we’re absolutely opposed to.”

I think these people scare me the most. The guys with the signs are scary but it's a given that you're going to have ignorant assholes in every group, party, or organization. But those that turn the blind eye enable this behaviour or secretly support it... these are the ones that scare me the most.

 

[nathan1977]

when i was in high school, we voted to make all the kids with red hair wear signs that said: KICK ME, I'M A GINGER.

it was awesome.

i mean, some of them cried, but whatever. we voted. and they were only 5% of the population.

You, my friend, went to a fucked up high school.

 

[Irvine511]

You, my friend, went to a fucked up high school.

you should try spending a day in the shoes of a Ginger.

 

[nathan1977]

you should try spending a day in the shoes of a Ginger.

Hey, hey -- some of my best friends are Gingers.

On the lighter side:
Teabonics: The most ridiculous - and misspelled - tea party protest signs