Slashdot Mirror
McCain Decries "Hobbits," Accused of Ringbearing
Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "Senator McCain decried Tea Party 'Hobbits' on Wednesday for their failure to support the GOP's debt deal, at times reading from a WSJ editorial that began the analogy. The Tea Party fired back, with a prominent member noting on CNN that McCain had been corrupted by the ring of power. The full text of his floor remarks should be in the Congressional Record later today."
The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.
No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.
I am officially gone from
I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol. I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People complain about government spending but then seem to forget that a large % of the US is employeed (directly or indirectly) by the government. You YANK that out all at once and I think we'll be reminiscing about the good old days of only 10% unemployment.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
They do. They just went over the budget because they decided to do the war scenes with real extras instead of much cheaper CGI.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.
For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.
And of course, by then it will be too late.
If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the wall when the time comes.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more... What happened in the last election was during the primaries he had to seem like he was far right, after he did that he failed to move to the center very well. Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Left to Center very gracefully.
We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not, they can hold strong to their convictions however they are not stupidly just holding onto Redirect and take each issue as it comes up. We need to demand more moderates, but the ext reams on both sides have us believe if we elect a moderate the ideals of the party will be compromised away, which isn't true.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sir, please remove that 1 from your UID. You have been promoted.
Everyone thinks some of government should be cut.
No one agrees on what that some should be.
That's the entire problem.
... says the extremist trying to purge the ranks of the Republican party of anyone rational.
... the result being that Congressmen will be people who either are independently wealthy, or are doing backdoor deals which will get them lots of pay, benefits, and retirement money.
Of course that happens anyway, but you really don't want to encourage it even more.
What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started. In the 20th century we became a super power due to massive infrastructure investments giving us our highway system and DARPA helped us build the Internet as we know it today. Sorry, government played a huge part in all of that. Everything from establishing minimal wage to setting fire codes help improve the way of life of every American and not just the robber barrens of the 19th century.
I don't see anyone leaving this country because they feel the government is too oppressive, if they did I'm not sure where they would go since Europe has a lot of the same policies, Asia is even tighter on freedom of expression and Africa is filled with strike. I guess that leaves Australia? While full of nice people and hot aussie chicks, they too have been spying on their citizens and doing the same things as our government including failed regulation leading to a massive oil spill off of their shores. So I guess that leaves Antarctica? Of course there are our dear friends to the north but Canada has its problems too, the grass is always greener on the other side. So I guess I have trouble picturing what a freer nation is. There aren't many nations out there where you will pay less in taxes, usually twice as much and don't forget the artificially low cost of gas here.
Please don't mention Switzerland. Despite living there, you have no clue what "economic freedoms" means. The only economic freedom you care about is the one to reduce the taxes you pay.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The "lowest taxes in the developed world" isn't quite true when you take into account state and local taxes.
However, I would say that the real problems are in the "My road project in my town" group. While the states have broad powers to tax, for some reason the argument has stuck that only the federal government can come up with the money for certain things. The federal government should not be funding the states, and any such funding should be cut. The states should administer their own taxes. When the states have more power, state elections will be even more contested, and better representation will result.
Social Security should probably be in the federal realm, since plenty of people move after retiring (and thus there's an imbalance of retirees). Medicare/Medicaid is already 50% funded by the states. If individual states really need help with Medicare costs then we can implement a "transfer" similar to the system used in Canada.
Defense spending certainly does need to be cut. Britain ruled half the world with 125,000 troops. We've got 1.4 million active troops. However, the time would be best spent finding a few large defense projects that can be cut for quick savings, and leaving the rest to an independent committee.
The Social Security wage base should be removed, so that it applies to all wages, not just the first $100K.
My bet is that if all that was done, overall taxes would still go up, but federal taxes might actually go down. Some laws would also change, without the threat of losing federal funding, states might be less willing to implement federal programs (e.g. drinking age at 21, abstinence-only education, etc.)
Federal road tax shouldn't exist either. There are very few federal roads, even the interstates are maintained by the states. They can fund that themselves.
Direct Payment and Grants to the states total $2 trillion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?year=2010&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Well, that is what happens when you kill the government, isn't it? Reverting to tribalism or feudalism. The secret hope of right-leaning anarchists is simply that they would come out on top and fill the local warlord position. The secret hope of left-leaning anarchists, on the other hand, is so utopic, that you gotta view Marx as a stone-cold realist in comparison.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
All power to the Counties! All power to the Cities! All power to the neighborhoods!
What is the deal with States, that they're so awesome? Maybe it's because I live in Oklahoma at the moment, but I'm just not seeing it. When we talk about mobility, you have to remember that the reason it's relatively (not absolutely, by a long shot) easy to pick up and move between states is that there's a certain amount of standardization provided by the federal government. Even something as simple as "states must recognize marriages from other states" makes a huge difference in where people could/would move for a job, for economic reasons. And it just goes up from there.
Also, do you really think the people of Missouri have sufficiently different needs and wants from the people of Oklahoma, that they need different laws? Maybe Utah does, and Texas just needs it for its ego, but really? We're all humans [for now], we're all potential works and employers. You might argue that when economic trouble hits, different regions need different economic policies applied because of local industry variations, but that's not prevented by the federal government; it already doles out money to various industries selectively, affecting regions differently. We decry the International Criminal Court as a violation of our sovereignty, we despise super-national unions like the EU, but really we're just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This far, and no further.
Are some states "red" and others "blue"? Maybe, but does that mean that we need states that are right next to each other, with either a 49/51 or 51/49 ratio, to be run entirely differently? Do you think that the resulting "sloshing", as people move out of their current states to escape overly-partisan policies, is good for us in the long term? Do you think polarizing our populations even more will solve our problems?
I realize this is about ideology, whether you believe that we are generally smarter or dumber as a group than as an individual. And I think that it's both, depending on the issue. Maybe we're smarter individually when running a small business, but we're dumber when it comes to planning health insurance, the military, etc. All of that is debatable, and actively debated, and that's healthy. I guess we could just split the union. Two countries. One centralized, one completely decentralized. Tear families apart. Break our economy. Increase tensions. Lose power in the world. And then split again, when each side disagrees on how much centralization is good.
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more...
Moderate Republicans aren't hard to find, however most of them call themselves 'Democrats'.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations. The resources of the Western US (and various marine bodies) untapped (except by the locals who were rather quickly marginalized).
This behavior also had a number of deleterious effects - raping of resources, the environment (would you want to live in a 19th century urban environment?) and impressive social inequities.
So, government did step in and attempt to mitigate the hellbent robber baron / beggar they neighbor system. It was partially successful. Yes, we have problems that stem from going the other way - to much regulation, too much governmental control. But your slavish devotion to an anachronistic and time limited system (not much of the West available for plunder at bargain prices) suggests you really haven't looked at some of the finer points in American history.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Mind stopping to post bullshit until you finally educated yourself enough as to know what an argumentum ad hominem actually is. One tip, numbnuts, this ain't one. This was a straight insult.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities. There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government. The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant. I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so. Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.
I got here through a series of tubes