Slashdot Mirror
From MIT Inventor To Tea Party Leader
An anonymous reader writes "In the midst of Congressional races around the country, one stands out to techies. Thomas Massie, an MIT whiz kid who pioneered touch-based interfaces and founded SensAble Technologies in the 1990s, is the favorite to win the Republican nomination in his Kentucky district next week. SensAble was recently sold on the cheap, but in a new exclusive, Massie explains why he left the haptics firm years ago to lead a simpler life of farming, family, and guns — lots of guns. Along the way he built a solar-powered, off-the-grid house and became a local hero of the Tea Party. Now Massie is leading the charge to get more engineers into politics, and if he wins, he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."
Now known as 'MITea'.
Whenever someone finds a right wing engineer? It's not really all that rare.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
book smart and people stupid.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You mean those tea partiers arent a bunch of hayseed nutjobs? That does not compute... I thought they were all bible thumping luddites with no brains at all He obviously took a wrong turn on the way to teh Occupy Wall Street violent demonstration
Possible causes:
1) Compartmentalizing.
2) People's minds decline as they age.
3) Brainwashing.
Gimme the TL;DR version. Motorcycle accident? Brain cancer? Aneurysm?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There are different kinds of intelligence.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
He must've really liked that $2 worth of swag he got for free.
...wasn't disappointed.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
What's worse is he's a guy with a huge number of patents and profits from them. It seems every like anti-government Tea Party person I met has a part of government they love. It reminds me of the old people demanding we keep the government out of their healthcare.
The thing is, they don't all agree on what parts are the problem. If there's ever really a Tea Party with a real platform, these guys are going to be in for a big surprise.
he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."
No, no he wont.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
After meeting and working with a few MIT grads, I'm not particularly impressed by any of them.
Not everyone in the TEA Party movement is what you appear to envision (appear, since all we have to go on is your posting). You might not want to be so bigoted in your beliefs.
Or you can stay in your happy bubble, pretend that everyone there is Them, and not have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
the only problems with OWS are the FBI/NSA plants that are subverting the movement through espionage and false flag operations
dont mind me and my tin foil hat.
and preparation for unpleasantness in general, but I have no taste for right-wing politics or christianity. Fortunately, preparation for the unexpected (i.e. EMPs, social unrest, the spanish inquisition...) does not require a right wing belief system, only a healthy paranoia and distrust of all institutions, over-complexified fragile, interdependent, energy-dependent supply chain ecologies and anything that comes over the mass media.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Kinda like mature slashdot posters eh?
I was doing research on touch interfaces three years before that. Not to develop the underlying technology, not even to build them, but how to improve them for practical applications, i.e. I was building on the basics that had been done long before that.
He's a lying cunt.
Speaking as a right wing, family oriented, gun loving engineer myself. Why would he ever want to go into politics?
If he was really so intelligent it also could have lead to a Randian god complex...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sounds like a Thomas Edison type of guy to me (Whiz kid? What, is he some kind of Tony Stark for "inventing" some interface device?). I'm intensely suspicious of anyone who supports religious beliefs. It demonstrates an error in logical thinking faculties.
Never trust an engineer that thinks the world is 6000 years old. And for the record, Edison was a douche bag.
Sheldon: 'cept Tom, he is just an engineer
*laughter follows*
Engineer tea-billies?
The correct term is "hickster."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Maybe one day you will realize that not everyone you disagree with is stupid or disingenuous.
4) He came to alternative conclusions than you did. Doesn't make them any more or less valid.
Not sure if you've been paying attention, but quite a few Repub sex scandals have been of the gay variety.
to wit: Larry Craig and Mark Foley vs Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner
But, well, not gun-crazy maniacs. We've got enough of those in the government.
Not a force to be reckoned with; just another crazy politician on the hill.
WTF is someone who is intelligent enough to graduate from college (MIT no less) doing associating themselves with the Tea Party. It's got to be some kind of paid publicity stunt.
"But he's smart... I think I'm smart. He should agree with meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Intelligent people disagree on stuff all the time. Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.
An Indian (not Native American) friend of mine was telling me about the acts of racism she was facing from her boss at what may be the most well-known public university in the U.S. for its academics and research, and its very liberal politics and role in late 1960s culture. She eventually quit her job because it got so bad. And I'll admit I was shocked even more when she told me her boss that was doing these things was black. Lesson: smart people who should know better, often do not.
Sometimes. Not always.
For instance people who believe in a flat earth did not come to an alternative conclusion they are just wrong.
...sure it would make no sense to see an educated person associating themselves with what the major media outlets associate with them. After all, all tea party people are nazis and all democrats are communist sympathizers, right? right?
If, on the other hand, you intelligently realize that most American's are actually fairly close in terms of political view and the cartoons presented to you are false on their face, you might see that both sides have rational points that should be listened to, even fought for.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
perhaps his intelligence is by design.
He can't be that smart; he claims he and his wife working together (3 MIT eng. degrees total) can't do their taxes.
The tax code isn't exactly simple, but come on.
.: Semper Absurda
Everyone knows the Tea Party is secretly run by rich corporate elites like Carter Pewterschmidt who just want to reduce government regulation so they can rape the environment!
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
Seriously? Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point, whether or not you agree with them politically. Ignorance is no excuse for an ad hominem attack.
My name fits again.
True, but if politics were such a science, everybody would vote the same way. Until some objective political truth is established, one viewpoint is as good as another.
Perhaps because intelligence != subscribing to your worldview. Yes, the Tea Party is full of arrogant idiots, but at the same time, there are many reasonable people who identify with the movement's goals of less government intrusion and returning to an America that is truly focused on individuality, doing things yourself (think Walden) and less of a military-industrial engine powered by mass consumption. As a Stanford engineer originally from a rural area: I hate the Bay Area, and I wouldn't live here if I could live comfortably without a corporate paycheck. People who tend to dismiss conservatives as unintelligent here often miss the fact that just because someone can't develop software or solve complex mathematical equations does not in fact mean that they haven't thought the issues that are pertinent to them just as much or if not more than you have. Perhaps, just maybe, God forbid, they came up with different conclusions. We're all still human, and all think in surprisingly the same way. Try loving all people and try to understand where their views are coming from, instead of just dismissing them as gun-toting monkeys because they have a different philosophical approach to life that is objectively neither better nor worse than yours.
Forgive me if I don't just for joy, just because he's a fellow engineer.
define 'real platform' please..
He's bootstrappy, and probably short on empathy. Fits the profile just fine. Just because you can understand the intracacies of circuits doesn't mean you're really going to understand the social implications of inequality.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
He disagrees with me politically therefore he must not be able to think on his own... wat? Because everyone who is smart must come to the same conclusions on everything.
The only gay people I know are republicans. Way to stereotype jackass.
There are MIT kids with "Glenn Beck Fan" buttons on their doors. There are fourth-year Course 6 CS students who don't know what an integer overflow is. There are fourth year chemical engineering students who can't remember the first law of thermodynamics. Most of these people are annoying and at MIT we rightly consider them stupid. Being an MIT student doesn't mean a damned thing. Being an MIT grad means a little more considering the higher attrition rate, but doesn't mean much either, particularly when it comes to areas outside of your competence. One of those people with the Glenn Beck buttons is one of the smarter EEs I've met, but it doesn't mean his politics are on this planet.
Why is anyone surprised?
...or maybe it's your own limitations, due to your own ideological attachments, that prevent you from seeing workable alternatives he sees. Just because someone graduated ivy league doesn't mean he's gotta be a rank and file liberal.
The level of Hate Speech on this forum makes me wonder if the posters are actually KKK members in disguise.
Democrats would never be so rude and insulting.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Time to start kicking the living shit out of these tax happy politicians.
Keep your guns close because that's what politicians are afraid of, it's the armed populace who are mad as hell and aren't going to put up with it anymore.
Time to start putting these welfare leaches to work. There is an entire road and bridge infrastructure that needs to be repaired.
The self-righteous comments make it hard to discern.
Again, I disagree. We can surely agree some viewpoints are not valid, for instance any that seeks to deprive someone of human rights, or authorizes war crimes as a matter of course. Also who think voluntary money paid to support society is theft, etc.
the only problems with OWS are the FBI/NSA plants that are subverting the movement through espionage and false flag operations
And that's why the people accused of these crimes, have their fellow OWS folks show up in court for moral support right? Oh wait, they're also plants...how silly of me. And it can't be just in the US, they're also FBI plants around the world right?
Ah gotta love the moderation of my original comment, when people are faced with things that don't fit their groupthink they cower and hide.
Om, nomnomnom...
FTFA - "Massie has been targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with questioning electric bills, phone bills, contracts, and fees for things that don’t apply anymore. Like the county being charged rental fees for property that had long been sold, paying for phone lines that had been disconnected for years, or buying stuff from a magistrate’s store."
Eliminating bills for services that no longer apply seems like a no-brainer. It sounds to me like the county government was corrupt, and based on the location (Lewis County KY) and demographics (98.2% white) he probably unseated a conservative when he was elected to county office.
Interesting to note that Lewis County KY gets 42.9% of it's income from the government (US national average is 17.6%). Seems like he should keep focusing on his home county before aiming higher.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Massie says. “You know it’s pretty bad when the people who have to deal with the FDA say, ‘Why can’t you be more like the Patent Office?’”
Why is wanting frugal government spending and lower taxes "not intelligent"?
To me, giving the government a blank check isn't smart. Remember when the Tea Party was formed, we were hearing "You must pass it in order to find out what is in it"... How STUPID is that? Would you sign a car loan that you didn't read, on a car you didn't get to see for 4 years, for a price that somebody else "kinda sorta" gives you an estimated price (that may (will) change)... How smart is that?
When the health care bill looked like there wasn't enough Democrat signatures to pass (didn't matter if 100% republicans voted against it, they didn't have any chance to stop it alone)... The glorious powers that be decided to try to have signed without being signed by waiting for enough people to go on Christmas vacation, then passing it with a budget (one of those assumed to be passed)... When that didn't look like it would work, congress members were flat out BRIBED! There was no shame and no effort to hide it. Congressmen got huge kick-backs for their home state if they changed to supporting the bill.
Is that the kind of government you want???
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
"But things have not gone smoothly for Massie in office—and that’s just how he wants it. “When you’re stalking waste within a government office, it’s like every rock that you turn over has a snake under it,” he says. Massie has been targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with questioning electric bills, phone bills, contracts, and fees for things that don’t apply anymore. Like the county being charged rental fees for property that had long been sold, paying for phone lines that had been disconnected for years, or buying stuff from a magistrate’s store. He has upset a lot of entrenched powers, but has gained support from the masses for it. And he says that in his first nine months in office, he cut enough waste to pay his own salary for three years."
Why does this sort of stuff just plain piss the left leaning person off? I mean, even if you are a dedicated communist shouldn't you still wish to find corruption, overspending, and waste, and squash it? Shouldn't that be something anyone from any party would rally behind?
But no, unfortunately when someone says limited government they immediately get called a right wing racist teabagger.
Also see Amendment IX:
and Amendment X:
The Tea Party, to the extent they speak with one voice, appears to believe that the power of the Federal government is limited to what the US Constitution grants them.
So, there's nothing inconsistent with a Tea Party leader benefiting from patents which are granted by the Federal government.
RTFA. It answers your question very well.
Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point ...
Nope.
Democrats would never be so rude and insulting.
If I had mod points, I'd give you +1, Funny. I've seen Democrats being rude and disgusting, too. No party has cornered the market on ***holes. (FWIW, I'm a Democrat.)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
I wrote a basic Quicken-like tax app in high school, I should have been an MIT shoe-in with a full scholarship!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There's are thousands of people deprived of human rights every day in the United States. We call them "prisoners". I agree there are some view points that should be scientifically provable. But they might be less common than you might think.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Kentucky/Thomas_Massie/Views/Debt,_Deficit,_Spending,_and_the_Size_of_Government/
"Thomas is opposed to ObamaCare, the Patriot Act, any new firearms restrictions, the intrusive actions of the Transportation Security Administration, indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, internet censorship, and all other infringements on our liberties by the federal government. "
Ok.. but then it gets sketchy.... "American families".. I bet he isn't talking about the wealthy 1%
"Every child born in this country owes $200,000 toward the national debt.... cuts the federal budget by 1% each year until the budget is balanced. American families must live within their means,"
Oh, but then.... ...supports a fairer, flatter tax plan that distributes the burden more fairly without increasing overall revenues for the federal government.
You can't just say "Oh, he's a geek type! Let's vote for him" because in the end all that matters is who he's really working for. The people, or the corporate douchebags.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
This is a perfect example of why there needs to be less power in the Federal government and instead manage things at the state level whenever possible. Like minded people tend to converge to each other. Therefore, the closer the government is to the people, the less likely it is that people are under laws and regulations that they do not agree with.
An educated fool.
And Kentucky, which is chock full of fools both educated and otherwise,
is a good place for him.
This just proves that being intelligent does not mean you are smart.
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate and ask why those viewpoints aren't valid. Is it because they justify evil? What exactly is evil and who gets to define it? What makes "evil" tactics invalid if it serves some greater good? I might not agree with such viewpoints, but I certainly can't see them as "invalid" or somehow irrational. Sometimes horrible views are perfectly rational and in a sense, valid. Thankfully most of us live in democracies where the viewpoints seen as valid by the majority are generally more humane.
these guys are going to be in for a big surprise.
what's not surprising is so many tea party/anti-federal government types while that state (and other southern states with big military bases) hosts Ft Knox which is huge base which pumps lotsa money from the federal govt into their local economy. Then there's local yokels sometimes suggest they succeed from the Union (and get all the gold).
mfwright@batnet.com
Doesn't make him smart. Despite what we've all been told about rocket scientists there is no correlation.
Still I wish the nut-case well and hope he and his sycophants and cronies have fun in the Kentucky legislature. If any state deserves him it's the one that allows bourbon to be made in a dry county.
Congratulations for proving why discussion with left-wingers is a waste of time.
"We can surely agree some viewpoints are not valid, for instance any that seeks to deprive someone of human rights"
A construct fundamentally built around a kilometre tall statue of "Begging the Question". Although orgasmicly pleasing and with enormous scope for smugness and righteousness, the avenue where you define something as a human right and pretend anyone who disagrees wants to "deprive someone of human rights" is not defensible. The question that is begged is what is a human right in the first place. If something never was a human right, then it cannot be deprived. The framing "depriving someone of human rights" is hence fundamentally dishonest and destructive for a discussion.
"authorizes war crimes as a matter of course"
Again begging the question of what a war crime is. In my country the Socialist Left party voted for the bombing of Serbia, which didn't have UN backing and only became "legalized" through a far-fetched interpretation of other Security Council resolutions as somehow authorising warfare by implication by not saying what would happen if peace didn't develop.
"Also who think voluntary money paid to support society is theft"
Again begging the question.
My personal attitude is that left-wingers make a good discussion impossible. That comes down to a particular broad concept of what a good discussion is, and a notion of what can be done to destroy such a discussion.
You're arrogant. There are political and philosophical doctrines that differ on all your points.
Quite true, I guess I should have added without just cause and due process of law to that comment.
I believe there are rather few, but that they are there and both major parties in the USA violate them. Neither wants to actual see what works and do that.
Look, I went to MIT, and I can tell you that (a) the people there are remarkably bright and (b) I wouldn't particularly want to put my trust in the political or economic opinions of some randomly chosen person from there, right wing, left wing, or requiring more dimensions than string theory to characterize politically.
Really smart people often have amazingly insightful opinions, but there's nothing like a brilliant person to have unshakable confidence in an unassailably stupid idea, like Schockley (the inventor of the transistor) and his theories of white racial supremacy. Or like my friend who had an affair with a married man because he promised her that his wife would be cool with it. It was impossible to convince her of the obvious fact this was stupid, bat-shit crazy idea because as smart as I was, she was way, way smarter. Having an argument with her was like climbing into the ring with Ali in his prime for a few bare knuckle rounds. You couldn't lay a glove on her. That taught me that sometimes a friend's role is to wait and be there when life gives your friend an unavoidable hard lesson.
Really brilliant people are used to being right when everyone else around them is wrong. They're hard to argue out of a wrong position, and when you get enough of them together that they can sort themselves into loony birds of a feather even reality can't make a dent in their opinions. And brilliance in one area doesn't translate into competence in every area. There are people I'd trust to design an aircraft I had to fly in or a sub I had to dive in, but that I wouldn't trust managing by checking account.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hmm oddly enough, all though I did not graduate from MIT, I am a EE and a Tea party supporter, as are several other engineering people I know. You probably believe in the fallacy that people who are 'liberal' are the only intelligent ones. Trust me there's just as many ignorant people on the left as there are on the right.
Here we have proof that attending MIT does not make one immune from ignorance and stupidity.
Stick Men
My personal attitude is that you are a fine example of what is wrong with right wingers, instead of even asking to clarify anything you go beating up strawmen.
The last point is not begging the question at all. It is a simple statement that those who believe taxes are theft are simply wrong.
You mean things like start a tech company and make a of couple million dollars, scuffle with the IRS, run for local political office, things like that?
It is one thing if you to give something to another out of your own volition. It is another thing to force someone else to give something to another by the point of a gun or incarceration.
Sure there are, and some are not valid anymore than the belief the earth is flat is valid.
How does knowledge of engineering and science change your views on the level of involvement government should have in a country?
You could argue that the engineers and scientists who support more liberal politics do so because they get paid fat government grants to do their work.
I consider myself a moderate with a little bit of right leaning. I don't really care for the Tea Party I see them as too extreme for my taste. However as someone with significant Science and Engineering training and experience. These disciplines really don't push my political beliefs.
Unless I am going deal with the issues that the real nuts care about such as Evolution (which I hold as the most solid theory) or Global Warming (which does exists and is caused by man) Where my training will form my opinions. However the Argument on how much of a roll Government should have is outside the study of Science and Engineering.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Lewis County KY is a Republican/Conservative county. Massie is in a Tea Party versus Republican battle.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
We can surely agree some viewpoints are not valid, for instance any that seeks to deprive someone of human rights, or authorizes war crimes as a matter of course. Also who think voluntary money paid to support society is theft, etc
Which none of these have anything to do with political views.
Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it—to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."
I wholeheartedly approve of this idea.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
To be fair you stated taxes were "voluntary". Taxes are not. I don't think you'll find a "right winger" / libertarian anywhere who will tell you private charity is theft.
They are invalid because I have decided so. You may decide for yourself if there are or not. I believe most agree with me that they are. It does not have to be a horrible view to be invalid. I would claim any system of sovereignty based on heredity should be dismissed as invalid based on what we already now about such systems. Feel free to disagree.
What, exactly, is their point? Complaining that their taxes are too high when their taxes are historically low?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
All of them are political views, republicans right now want to deprive homosexuals of marriage rights, Israeli nationalists support war crimes against the Palestinians as part of their platform with collective punishment, and the many libertarians right here on slashdot love to claim taxes are theft.
Taxes are voluntary in the same way home rent is voluntary - you're free to not pay it, but you need to move out then.
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
Yeah, then the same mind would look at other significant bodies of work, history, law, etc and come to the conclusion that the teaparty is at best a gaggle of useful misguided morons that just mean well. A less generous view would leave one wondering where their klan hats are.
To take the constitution and elevate it to the status of an infallible religious document is the sort of strange, nonsensical mental gymnastics it takes to be a true believer tebag.
Yes, and I have the rent I have because I chose to pay that level of rent because I like the neighborhood. I fail to see how your viewpoint contradicts mine.
Which is why you are free to leave if you don't want to pay for the society you live in. I hear Somalia has very low taxes.
No party has cornered the market on ***holes.
Damn straight. I'm "unaffiliated" and I'm the biggest fucking asshat on the planet.
Cool! I love Bubble Tea!
current left/right ideology is the problem, not a solution, and democrats and republicans prop up theirs as the everlasting solution to everything.. it's getting old, and that's why the tea party exists at all.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own? What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in. I'm all for paying for what you get, but people shouldn't be forced to pay for things they don't need or want.
He lives in a county where the population gets over 42% of their income from government sources, including food stamps, medicare, welfare, and other social programs. Sure, he can point his finger at "big government" in Washington because that will get him elected. Pointing out to his fellow Lewis County residents how much they get from the government will probably piss them off.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Try not paying your "voluntary" taxes. If it was voluntary you would have a point.
Why ask to clarify? If he has even a single braincell he is eminently aware of precisely the methods he employs. Any further discussion with someone who has decided to take this approach to the use of language will a complete waste of time.
Language is highly flexible. Between the options of defining terms to delineate reality, tweaking existing delineations, picking which constructs and frames to use and which elements to insert into them, you can reach any conclusion you want.
The last point is begging the question of whether paying taxes is "Voluntary". To illustrate in light of the paragraph above - you can choose to apply one construct, where anything is "voluntary" as long as there is even a theoretical chance of escaping it by putting down significant effort or changing your life dramatically for the worse to avoid it. According to this construct, paying taxes is voluntary because there is the possibility of emigrating to Somalia.
Or, we can go further down the menu to construct number two, also called "Voluntary". This construct is often applied when it comes to young people from poor neighbourhoods and schools. It says that not working hard at school is not a "voluntary" choice. It says that "voluntary" goes away once a complex of factors that makes a particular avenue easier to pick becomes strong enough. Such people don't "voluntarily choose" not to put down great effort at school - they are essentially forced to it by society.
So yes, there is a mythological jungle of constructs out there, all being applied in a complete free-for-all may-the-loudest-win.
We are the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically and, through our subsidiaries and affiliates, internationally. We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.
What an organization claims it is about and what it actually IS about are often two totally separate things. So I have to ask, what is this "valid point" the tea party has? Does it really have anything to do with the constitution? Because it seems to me what they actually stand for is irrational fear of societal changes that have already happened, and zero taxes for corporations and the rich.
Way to fail at current events. It was pretty clear what the tea party wanted when it started. They wanted the government to stop wasting tax dollars bailing out banks. If you had been paying attention, you'd see that they pretty much want the same thing the occupy protesters want. The only real difference was the tea party is made up of people who don't believe you have to destroy property, rape people, and violate others' rights to make a point.
take your own advice.. after all, if he had a 'well rounded' education, he must absolutely be a rank and file liberal.
I assume he's not filing 1040-EZ.
And, I say that in all seriousness. The logical or obvious "Occam's Razor" solution to problems often don't apply to us illogical human beings. We do lots of stupid things, not out of anything more sinister than our overwhelming biological drives. That includes reproducing before we might be financially stable, getting fat, our drive to socialize and find mates, etc. When you start assuming that humans will be logical, you start assuming wrong. Ask a sociologist how well some "obvious" solution to a social ailment that's been public policy (and failing) for decades is working out.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
To most on the right, free speech is allowed, as long as they can discredit any views they don't like, no matter how false and deceptive their methods of doing so are.
So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy? Seriously? If a group of people who peacefully protested (literally, as in no vandalism, no destruction of personal property, no assaults on police officers, no drug overdoses, no rapes, etc.) is "crazy" I'd hate to see the words you use to describe the occupy movement.
Stephen Chu, the whiz kid who's now being named as a "person of interest" in the mis-management of the Dept. of Energy loans to so-called "green" companies.
Have you read their "contract on america"? They talk about reject emission trading, balanced budget, reducing taxes. These have nothing to do with constitution. They even talk about cutting Obama's healthcare based on constitution, but ask them if they want to cut social security/medicaid. Teaparty doesn't care about the constitution, they are too busy trying ban gay marriage,abortion and demanding to see Obama's birthcertificate. They also whine about the USPS and how it should be privatized, I wonder if they even read the constitution where explicitly defines as a task of the federal government.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.
Because there is just no way to evaluate the efficacy of political theory.
Massie calls himself a “Constitutional conservative,” and he identifies with the Tea Party—at least the members in his home state, whom he says “defy the stereotype in the media.” As he explains, “In northern Kentucky, Tea Parties focus on fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. All of the other stuff around the edges—that maybe some Tea Party folks are for and some are against—don’t get rolled up into the agenda.”
So he shares some ideals with the Tea Party, particularly the central theme of limited government. Imho, it's the part that sounds the most intelligent and reasonable of the Tea Party's philosophy. I would even argue that it is desperately needed at a time when we are losing important rights every day and 40% of our GDP is going to the government. Perhaps you should read the article, think about what the man is saying, and then form an opinion about it.
Or, as most often is the case, his beliefs and politics do not conform to your caricatured image of Tea Party members. Most of us who complain that the "other side" has maliciously stereotyped us, pigeonholed us into permanent roles as communists, neo-cons, all-or-nothing liberals or all-or-nothing conservatives, often have trouble restraining ourselves from doing the same.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Your characterization of Occupy is about as accurate as the GP's characterization of the Tea Party.
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own?
I think you didn't quite get the point of my comparison. You are free to move to a different country and "rent" the government there; there are quite a few which are cheaper. Or you can try to set up a country of your own - except that all land is already taken up by someone else (but that is also true with my rent analogy - if all land everywhere is purchased, and they refuse to sell it to you, you can only rent; so free market does not offer any relief here, either).
What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in.
The people who live in the country are not self sufficient. At the very minimum they enjoy the protection of the laws of that country - protection against both internal threats (i.e. the mob that would come and take away what's theirs), and external (a hostile country that would take over).
I can't do my taxes either. It's not lack of ability, but lack of motivation. (1) Nobody is paying me for ~8 hours wasted reading through the booklets, and (2) it's cheaper to just work 1 extra hour and then pay someone else to do it.
My mother does her own taxes, but it takes her 2-3 days. Which is just nuts. The tax code should be simpler without all the confusing deductions, credits, and social engineering.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
And I'll admit I was shocked even more when she told me her boss that was doing these things was black.
Did you think that only white people can be racist?
Congressmen got huge kick-backs for their home state if they changed to supporting the bill.
Care to name one? The famous kickback to the one from Nebraska (Nelson I think?) was removed in the final version of the bill that passed.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Taxes are voluntary in the same way home rent is voluntary - you're free to not pay it, but you need to move out then.
So if the government starts a tax on the air you breathe, you can free not to breathe?
Taxation is unjust. Forced taxation is unjust.
Let me put it another way:
If I walked over to your house and demanded $1,000, you said 'to hell with you', and then I shot your wife and burned your house to the ground...I'm a murderer and my actions are immoral, right?
If I walked over to your house and demanded $1,000, you said 'to hell with you', and then I hired a bunch of thugs to come over, shoot your wife, and burn your house to the ground...I'm a murderer and that's called a gang or mafia and our actions are immoral, right?
Lastly, If I walked over to your house and demanded $1,000, you said 'to hell with you', and a few hundred armed men showed up, shot your wife, and burned your house to the ground....I'm not a murderer. It's called 'government', and it's suddenly moral?
(If you've lived in a fog for a few decades and think the government doesn't do this, Google for things like 'Ruby Ridge', 'Branch Davidians', and 'Mountain Meadows Massacre'. Or replace the demand for $1,000 in taxes with a demand you stop smoking pot, a demand you stop drinking milk from a cow, or your stereo is 'too loud' and you tell the cops they need a warrant before coming on your property)
The funny thing is that this reminds me surprisingly of the left.
DURR THE SUPREME COURT IS LIKE A POLITICAL PARTY AND JUST PICKS WHATEVER THE RIGHT WING WANTS
- The President of the United States
Who is modding up these stupid comments, masquerading as tolerant acceptance of other people's politics? It is not, as these mods would suggest, open-minded and intelligent to accept the TEA Party movement as a valid political movement. It is not, and anyone who has looked at it knows that it is a movement that rejects science and rational thought in favor of nationalistic provincialism. That an otherwise intelligent person can identify himself with a movement that rejects climate change--to take just one example--is amazing. It is no more close minded to reject the TEA Party than it was to reject the rise of fascism in Europe. This is not hyperbole. A close look at the TEA Party finds amazing similarities to every other fascist movement in modern history.
I don't understand why you're being modded a troll. That is a pretty accurate insight.
The Tea Party and its morons actively campaign to spread disinformation, outright lies, and push extreme and regressive religious agendas.
Nobody who is as smart as this guy could possibly be dumb enough to take that nonsense at face value. Clearly, he found a way to play the system, or someone is offering him mountains of cash.
After all, the driving force of the tech industry AND politics is the quest for mountains of cash.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
You have a bizarre notion of "voluntary"
No, complaining that government spending is too high!
Reduce the number of political positions to fit our vocabulary. Your solution of expanding the labels just leads to madness.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The difference in this case is that it's not "your house". It's everyone's country, and its citizens have have collectively decided that residents are to pay for the privilege of living here.
If you don't want to pay taxes, you're free to move out and buy an island somewhere in the Pacific with full transfer of sovereignty, from any country that is willing to sell you one on such terms.
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
The interesting thing is, there is another group of extremists who are known for the prominence of engineers in their midst. Osama Bin Laden was himself an engineer, and he's not the only one. It's not a science thing, you don't see many botanists or physicists running amuk, just engineers. It may be an engineering mindset thing.
It seems to me that as a group engineers may not be the best possible choice for political discourse. Bring on the botanists and psychologists and chemists and entomologists (and etymologists too, what the hell), but let's not overdo the representation from engineers.
While I agree with many of your points, I must point out: there is an exit tax to leave the US permanently (and several other free nations). I think the exit tax is actually an immoral tax, as constructed, whereas I'm okay with most other forms of tax (within reason).
Also, secondarily, just because the US doesn't restrict you from leaving doesn't mean you can leave voluntarily. There has to be a destination that is not the US which you can go to voluntarily. Most free nations have some form of immigration restrictions.
is that because right wingers only have rhetorical discussions?
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
Neat. But living on cash is hardly better in a society where wealth and productivity are completely divorced.
Do they think Barry Goldwater is still in charge or are they under the delusion that they're going to be changing that party from within?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It's pretty sad how people will sell out their country so cheaply, for a few extra bucks for their state.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
To most on the left free speech is allowed, as long as it agrees with their views.
Sounds about right, especially what I've experienced in the last year or so especially while visiting various universities in Canada and the US. Freedom of Speech or expression? Not so much, unless it conforms to our "views' on it.
Sorry people modding, groupthink is not "freedom of expression" it's hiding yourself in a hole and going *LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU*
Om, nomnomnom...
I like this guy . An Engineer applying the principle he learnt in his trade to his life.
Gah - there's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start.
Yes, the voting on this bill happened quite quickly after it was finalized. But A.) it's not like it wasn't being debated for six months prior, and B.) it's largely what Massachusetts has had for years prior (oh, and was originally created and promulgated by Republican think-tanks) and C.) it's not some massive dumping of cash into Obama's offshore account. Its transparent, you can read it, its complicated BECAUSE THE U.S. HEALTH SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED, it's a sincere effort to solve a big, complicated, longstanding problem.
Yes, Ben Nelson got a bribe. Congress took it back from him later, look at the Congressional Quarterly if you want the details. People have been trying to get similar legislation passed in America for nearly a hundred years, they were supposed to call the whole thing off because of one last-minute hold out? Is it not clear that Congressman Nelson simply wanted a bribe, rather than him having substantial issues with the legislation?
Yes the bottom-line price of this legislation and the system it creates kinda-sorta is an estimate. Given the size of the system, the vagaries of predicting medical advances, etc, there's absolutely no way to write laws for any system where the bottom-line cost were absolutely known in advance.
The Tea Party. Basically everybody slept through George W. Bush's two terms as he blew through tremendous chunks of taxpayer money - giving tax breaks up the wazoo, laying out a huge new medicare benefit, created the largest new bureaucracy in fifty years, entering us into a war just on his own whim, apparently. I didn't see a single tea party person throughout all of that. Suddenly a Democrat comes to office, and every dime his administration spends is an affront to LIBERTY! TO THE BARRICADES! BUT WAIT WHILE I STAPLE THESE TEA BAGS TO MY HAT!
Not everyone in the TEA Party movement is what you appear to envision
Just ignore the man under the tricorn hat.
I see. They are invalid because you have decided so. Also you appeal to the majority because, god knows, if most people say "X", it's probably right. Gotcha. Tell me why heredity based systems should be dismissed as invalid. Is this based on your world-view? Your personal morality of what is right or wrong. What if the democratic majority would result in disaster -- or a war. What if a dictator who suppresses the violent will of the masses is the only thing holding a country back from destruction.
Take Egypt for example. Now that the big bad evil dictator Mubarak is gone, the people by democratic will are going to vote in somebody who will throw the peace treaty with Israel out -- very likely leading to war. Over 70% see Saudi Arabia as a model for social policy (stoning, etc...) as opposed to 17% for the increasingly less moderate Turkish model. This is a situation where a dictator protected a population from it's own religious idiocy. It also protected minorities (Copts, for example) from the tyranny of the majority. Now that the dictator is gone, the Copts are being slaughtered. Your morality might say that the people, however wrong, should be allowed to be as self destructive as they choose. Others might argue that a stong central dictatorship progressively modernizing society and removing the destructive influences of religion might be a far more "Moral" choice in the long run. If there is a war with Israel and all hell breaks loose, it'll be hard to argue democracy was good thing for the region.
The point I'm trying to make is that not everything is so cut and dry when it comes to what is "valid" and what is not. Systems that are appropriate in one place might be totally disastrous in another. The idea that all cultures are equal or that all people want the same thing leads to nothing but disaster.
And mathematicians.
Your statement insults your own intelligence more then anyone else's.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Right there, you show you don't know shit about what the Tea Party represents.
1. The government takes too much of OUR money.
2. It spends it on stupid stuff and stupid people.
Now, you will probably be a moron and start talking about Fire and Police services etc. But you have to really turn up the stupid dial if you think that is what the protests were about.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Like minded people tend to converge to each other. Therefore, the closer the government is to the people, the less likely it is that people are under laws and regulations that they do not agree with.
Ahem. California.
This must be some new weird American thing, but what is with this latest fetish with tea parties?
Isnt that a stereotypically British thing to do with friends?
And why would you bring guns...lots of guns...to a tea party? Wouldnt it scare the (non-US) children?
WTF is someone who is intelligent enough to graduate from college (MIT no less) doing associating themselves with the Tea Party.
Because they are the only way to break into politics today. The Democrats and mainstream Republicans want nothing to do with you unless you're a fourth-generation party leader.
And don't forget, the whole objective of the Tea Party is responsible government spending. All that birther shit, anti-science shit, "we're a Christian nation" shit has been tacked on by the obnoxiously vocal neocon usurpers, but it wasn't the original goal of the movement (and it was a cross-party movement, not a political party) when the Libertarians and other fiscally-responsible people started it before the '08 election. Maybe he's just trying to re-grass-roots this grass-roots movement.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.
Because there is just no way to evaluate the efficacy of political theory.
Currently, we have to rely on observations of what has been tried, and it's never one thing at a time, is it? If you have a suggestion for an ethical way to come up with data that is not heavily confounded, I'd love to hear it. Personally, I have no desire to start building Skinnerboxtopias to figure it out.
Yeah, but don't put it past them to try their best
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There has been a smear campaign against the Tea Party by both the republicans and democrats alike since it first started to gain power. You've fallen for it, congratulations. The democrats paint them as "Even more conservative republicans" which is almost completely the opposite of what they are. And the republicans try to paint them as the lunatic fringe or, even worse, create their own version of the party: The Tea-party express, which is nothing more than republicans mascaraing as Tea-Party members to further discredit the name. Neither party wants them to gain any more momentum.
The true Tea Party is about what it's named after. When they threw the tea into the harbor back in the day, they were protesting a government that was over taxing them and not representing their interests. The taxes were levied to help support foreign wars that the colonies had no interest in. Most Tea Party members today feel we are in the same situation again. The government keeps raising taxes, spending more, borrowing more... all to fund wars they have no interest in, or to get more involved in our lives. Just like the revolutionaries that founded this country they want the government out of their lives. They want to keep more of what they earn, and they don't want to be involved in wars they know nothing about. Most could care less about social issues. Gay Marriage? Don't care. Abortion? Don't care. Religion? Don't care. Just stop taxing us so much, and get the hell out of our lives.
If you want to end war and lower taxes, get involved. Both republicans and democrats will continue waging war and raising taxes as long as you continue to let them. Is the Tea Party the answer? I doubt it. But they are a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Volition never helped the cold, hungry, and infirm.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If, on the other hand, you intelligently realize that most American's are actually fairly close in terms of political view
Do you think so? I personally know Americans who think the US should be run under Old Testament of the Bible law -- including stoning adulterers -- and people who think that churches should be outlawed. I know people who own 100,000 rounds of ammunition and people who think guns should be banned. People who think sick people who can't pay medical bills should be dumped out on the street to die and people who think the government should provide free unlimited healthcare. People who think the Federal government should do nothing more than fund and run the military, and people who would like to see the government nationalize many large corporations and run them. I don't actually know anyone who argues that women shouldn't have the right to vote, but I've seen them talk. I do know people who think anyone who doesn't believe in the christian god should not be allowed to hold public office. That's a pretty wide spectrum of ideas, spanning from Saudi Arabian to Maoist to anarcholibertarian. I'm sure other countries have as broad a swath of ideas: I'm not claiming american exceptionalism as regards political leanings. However, I haven't seen much evidence of other countries having much broader political views.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I suspect that when you mention Shockley you are referring to the media's interpretation of his views, not his actual views. There was a reason that he took to taping his conversations with reporters and then providing them with typed transcripts.
It is surely true that plenty of high IQ people make mistakes from time to time. (e.g. Your friend was obviously not doing her thinking with her brain.) However, the strange opinions that they have are very often right. The mainstream view has been wrong about many topics repeatedly throughout history, and that holds true today. When the paradigm begins to shift, it is invariably started by a lone high IQ individual who publicly states their own theory, which will be in opposition to the consensus.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Yeah, the TEA Party is completely vilified. But of course, any critiques you hear about OWS supporters are completely warranted and just.
Personally, I think it's idiotic that the two sides can't see that they basically want the same thing.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
And that's why the people accused of these crimes, have their fellow OWS folks show up in court for moral support right? Oh wait, they're also plants...how silly of me. And it can't be just in the US, they're also FBI plants around the world right?
Ah gotta love the moderation of my original comment, when people are faced with things that don't fit their groupthink they cower and hide.
While I personally dislike the OWS movement, I must jump in here--if I witnessed one of them protesting peacefully and an officer tried to arrest them, I'd definitely step in. While I disagree with their message, I support their first amendment right to free speech. And I will fight to the death to protect it. (Obviously not if they are trashing storefronts though--that's not speech.)
Secondly, are you naive enough to think our government doesn't do this infiltration crap all the time? *cough*COINTELPRO*cough*.
Nobody is entirely self-sufficient. Even the people who live out in the boonies, have their own well, their own power and their own food depend on living in an environment where thugs don't roam the area, looking for cheap thrills or money.
That's the problem with every single Libertarian/Tea Partier in the US. They think that a lack of government simply means that they get no medicare in exchange for no taxes. What they fail to understand is that the political and social stability of the US is built on taxes as well.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
War crimes? Please. The Palestinians are the cause of their own misery. You should read both sides. The could have had a state from day one. Go preach gay rights in Gaza or Ramallah if you give that much of a fuck. I'm gay and I vote republican. Do I believe Obama when he suddenly "evolves" after Biden puts his foot in his mouth? No. Obama had plenty of opportunity to push gay marriage through. He didn't. He even defended DOMA when he had no obligation to do so. At least the Republicans are the devil I know on the matter.
An engineer, let alone a smart one, has no future in a political career.
The right kind of nerd to succeed in politics has to have a hunger for power that far exceeds his distaste for every aspect of politics and all of the surrounding personalities he will come into contact with.
Not to mention what he himself has to become.
Engineering is based on truth. You don't say that the bridge will support a 25,000 kg vehicle if you aren't sure.
Politics is based on straight-faced lying.
Just to reiterate my reply to your previous post. You have no clue what the Tea Party is about.
Taxes to support your community...Police, Fire and other essential services are not theft.
Taxes to pay off crooked bankers, cronies of local politicians, corrupt unions, etc. are theft.
You should actually learn about that which you so casually disparage.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Can't ... see ... past ... overwhelming ... irony.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Fuck off, Wilma. In terms of asshattery, you're just a punter compared to me.
And Wesley Snipes thought is was voluntary too
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"You must pass it in order to find out what is in it"... How STUPID is that?
At least as stupid as misquoting Pelosi out of context.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
two extremely, extremely intelligent engineers i work with think the earth is ~4000 years old. yes, they are brilliant when it comes to circuits and fab process and rtl, but they are young-earth creationists.
why does this announcement surprise anyone other than fox news, who will now use this guy as street cred for the teabaggers? /shakes head/
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
yeah. seeing how TEA is supposed to stand for Taxed Enough Already and they are constantly screaming about taxes despite them being the lowest theyve been in 50+ years, I tend to think all teabaggers are complete morons. that and they didnt say shit about anything like the deficit when republicans were in power, just when a black muslin kenyan marxist fascist got elected. then suddenly the reset button was hit and history started january 2009.
oh yeah, global warming is also a hoax and a million other things teabaggers believe that are in direct contradiction to logic and facts.
If you want me to think the Tea Party has smart people, the smart people in the party need to speak up, and call out the dumb asses in their ranks.
You probably believe in the fallacy that people who are 'liberal' are the only intelligent ones.
Well, yeah. But it's a tradeoff, because we're also lazy government mooches.
Cuts both ways, eh? I'll bet you haven't spent a lot of time calling people out for that latter piece of BS.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
and 40% of our GDP is going to the government.
Which government are you talking about? Total federal taxes as a percentage of GDP were around 14.9% between 2009-2010. If you add in local and state the average goes up to around 23%. This is historically low.
Federal taxes alone averaged 18.5% of GDP during the Reagan administration.
This is the problem I have with the majority Tea Partiers. They operate under a different set of facts which invariably have no basis in reality.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Or you guys can leave so we can have the society we both want, I hear Greece needs more tax payers to pay for it's 'free' Government handouts.
This is the absolute worst aspect of the American Dream, the great lie that somehow you alone are responsible for what you become. There is this huge society around you that as responsible as anything you may want, but it won't survive if everybody argues themselves into a sort of self-righteous sociopathy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
remember when clinton was president? then what happened. teabaggers were INVISIBLE during the worst president ever and his republican congress that created the entire mess.
the healthcare bill saves money by the way. whatever else youre talking about isnt true. and dont forget the unconstitutional abuse of the filibuster by republicans.
So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy?
The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on being pissed off about that particular event. Most Tea Party claims ring hollow because they had 8 years of Bush to say something when all of these same types of things were happening, but conveniently waited until a Democrat took office before making any real noise.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
That would be a valid point if either Tea Partiers or Libertarians espoused complete elimination of all taxes for any purpose. But since neither do, you're just knocking over strawmen.
Massie says that more engineers should be in politics. That idea that there are people who are "smart" enough to lead has been done before when the Bolsheviks took over after the 1917 October Revolution.
Lenin had to gain the support of the populace by using anarchist ideals and slogans ("Power to the Soviets (worker's councils)!"). But once he seized power, he reiterated that the Bolshevik Party is the rightful party to make the decisions because the populace was "too ignorant" to do things for themselves. While he thought it was bad for capitalists too exploit people for profit, he didn't think it was bad to use the same capitalist ways and means of organizing people; all because he thought people were too unsophisticated to do things on their own. On another note, the proletariart (industrial workers) were a minority in Russia, so even the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat was elitist because it excluded the peasant and artisan society that made up most of Russia.
There was a recent Slashdot story that mentioned that China typically elects/chooses engineers into positions of power. That hasn't worked out too well for the people controlled by the engineers.
There's a number of theories put forth to morally justify taxation; one of the more palatable admits only property tax, under the notion that all land is government owned, and the property taxes are rent (and are set accordingly, rather higher than current rates). The idea has some interesting ramifications, including the de facto abolition of the real estate market -- if you're sitting on valuable land, the annual payment is ample reason to vacate, so anyone who has a use for it can register a claim. There could still be premiums offered (covering moving costs, etc.) when a company wants to assemble a large plot, but the land itself would be essentially worthless.
I takes it as I sees it. Whatever the Tea Party's origins, and I don't buy for a second it was as pure as the driven snow, but conceding your point, what it has indeed become is a home for all the birthers, Dominionists and other unsavory sorts that have sort of collected at the bottom of the GOP barrel. Yes, there are some valid points, but they are so eclipsed by a lot of nonsense that they get drowned out. But the Tea Party purists shouldn't feel bad. That's what has happened to previous populist movements. Look at the Occupy Movement, which seems to have started with guys pissed that they were going vastly into debt to pay for educations or losing their houses because they couldn't pay their mortgages, while big banks got billions of dollars in bailouts. But before too long it had accrued a sufficient number of lunatics that the initially understandable and even sensible message was drowned out.
This is what happens to these sorts of movements. They either become large and rudderless and come to stand for everything (and hence, nothing), or they become focused under some sort of leadership and either get subsumed back into the political movement they splintered from, or they create a new political movement. Now obviously the GOP was for several years stark raving terrified that the Tea Party would indeed take a walk, and leave the GOP a damaged rump like what happened in 1992. So they've taken the alternative road and have embraced, or at least claimed they embraced, all those things the Tea Party seems to stand for. Of course, it's all bullshit, and the GOP will work very hard after Obama's victory in November, to suffocate the movement and put the crazies back at the bottom of the barrel, because no matter what else the Tea Party is, it has proven an unwieldy, chaotic group.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Considering that they call government evil, and that government is always the problem, and that taxes are theft - yes, they actually support the elimination of all taxes. If they don't, they should stop with the overheated rhetoric. Finally, people do argue that there are some that are entirely self-sufficient, and don't need any help at all. See the post I replied to.
Before throwing around accusations of straw men, you might want to make sure you've actually read what's being written.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The Boston Tea Party happened not because of the taxing of tea per se (though I'm sure some were pissed at that), but because they didn't believe that the British government had the right to levy a tax without consulting them and going to their representatives. It was not fundamentally a battle about taxes, but about political rights.
Since no Tea Party member is without a Congressman or a Senator, they cannot make that complaint at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
current left/right ideology is the problem, not a solution, and democrats and republicans prop up theirs as the everlasting solution to everything.. it's getting old, and that's why the tea party exists at all.
Wrong answer McFly.
Richard Mourdock was endorsed by Tea Party Express over Dick Lugar in the primary for the Indiana senate primary, and this is what he said after he won:
"I don't think there's going to be a lot of successful compromise," Mourdock said this morning on CNN's Starting Point program. "I hope to build a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate so bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government."
There are 62 members in the House who claim to be part of the "Tea Party Caucus". All 62 are Republican. There are 4 members in the Senate who claim the same status, and all of them are Republican too.
The Tea Party exists because Republicans got their asses kicked in 2008 and figured anger was a sufficient enough motivator to reengage the base. The Tea Party is a full-fledged wing of the Republican Party, and what they have done has changed the dynamic of the debate so that it's about left/extreme right ideology instead of just left/right ideology. So if you think they represent some sort of escape hatch, or a "third way"-style answer to how things used to be, you're out of your fucking mind.
You mean like EVERY SINGLE MODERN DEMOCRATIC STATE getting a social security net over the last 100 years?
Go look up a Dave Chapell bit about a "whore's uniform" and you'll see where we're coming from.
...he says while pulling of an ad hominem attack. Classic.
Does that give you the right to go to someone's house point a gun to their head and take their money?
Not wanting your money taken by force and being willing to give money are not mutually exclusive.
Exactly. Anyone who doesn't share my political views is stupid and wrong.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of having those exact guns and threats of incarceration taking his property from everyone else. You earned it you say? Only within the same fucking framework where taxes are paid!
Yes. It also turns out that you are free to vote for people who want to lower or reduce taxes. Don't forget that the government is made up of people, and which is (ostensibly) there to serve the people--it's not just some entity which exists on its own.
Daily Kos. Practically a hate site when GWB was in office. Might even be still today. I haven't bothered to check lately. Don't plan too either.
Life is not for the lazy.
I'm not talking about spending, not tax burden as percentage of GDP. In 2011 government spending was 38.9% of the GDP, 2012 is predicted to be ~40%...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
The problem is that the government's debt has reached astronomical proportions and that money eventually has to be payed back. Just because our current tax burden is somewhat reasonable (although the claim that it is "historically low" and that ridiculous chart are laughable, as they will be historically high as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire), it can't keep up with our borrowing. If anything, it means we are in for even bigger problems down the road. There is a blog post on the Cato institute on the subject of calculating the government's percent of GDP here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/american-government-spending-41-of-gdp/
Compared to some Euro zone nations we are in good shape. But they are also going bankrupt with governments near collapse.
We live in a time when people seem to think that "distribution of wealth" is something that governments are suddenly capable of doing when history has REPEATEDLY shown otherwise. My views are largely based on what I studied in school (ancient history) and I don't consider myself to be a tea party person. Reality is that the US government is currently operating in an unsustainable manner on many levels (state, federal, and local) and eventually that will catch up to us. Defaulting on government debts will lead to either major global war or an economic takeover by foreign powers. Some would argue the latter is already in motion.
No, they don't. They have never, at any point in history, said that all taxes should be eliminated. None of their other positions about taxes or government imply such a thing. And you know it.
You are absolutely attacking strawmen.
I don't believe "the great lie that somehow you alone are responsible for what you become". I just believe people should be able to do what they want with what is theirs barring that they don't encroach on another's rights. I do believe that we should help each other out. I don't believe that we should steal from those that choose otherwise. Now, I can choose to not treat those who choose otherwise the same as everyone else but that is not stealing. That is simply choosing how I to allocate my resources.
Taxes are pretty much 100% indistinguishable from Mafia protection money and nearly indistinguishable from slavery, albeit of a part time variety.
It isn't the same as theft in the sense of someone breaking into your house while you are not there and taking stuff or picking your pocket because in those cases your cooperation is not required. In a mugging you could just refuse to give them your money. In some cases you may get shot or stabbed, but it is still a kind of choice. In the same way I could simply not pay taxes. I'd probably end up in prison, but it is still a kind of choice.
I suppose taxes do somewhat resemble a mugging where someone puts a gun to your head and politely asks you for "their" money. The mugger might even regard your hiding money from them as "cheating". The mugger might shoot you for it. Governments tend to just lock you in a cage.
I am in one of the lowest income brackets in the US and yet I still pay about 1/3 of my income to the government. Basically for about 4 months of every year I am working for the government and only for the government. For that period of time I am not benefiting from my own labor at all. For that period of time, for practical purposes, I am in fact a slave and my labor is indistinguishable from slave labor. I could imagine a system where you could avoid income taxes by simply "volunteering" to do unpaid labor directly for the government for 4 months out of every year. In such a society it might even be seen as a kind of civic duty.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
[ He's bootstrappy, and probably short on empathy. Fits the profile just fine. Just because you can understand the intricacies of circuits doesn't mean you're really going to understand the social implications of inequality. ]
OK, actually Equality is a horrible word to describe what they goal is, the goal should be "Congruency".
If you wanna make all people equal how in the hell is that going to be accomplished? Give everybody plastic surgery to look like one "base line human" then give all the smart people lobotomies and all of the dumb people stem cell brain treatments and then you have to reprogram everyone like robots...
What is better is congruency which is applying the law equally regardless of what sex/age/gender/culture/social class someone is in. How do you do that? Not by creating shit tons of new laws and regulations each year... No you have to keep the number of laws to a minimum and only pass a law if it meets several criteria. By having fewer laws (not a lack of laws) but fewer laws that are easier to enforce then you can have you law enforcement agencies actually enforcing laws that make sense and aren't doing dipshit things like being "revenue generators". How can ANYONE agree that by having so many laws you need a forklift to move the actual REAMS and REAMS of papers that comprise those laws that enforcement is going to be "Automatic". Having shit tons of laws and regulations that even lawyers have a hard time keeping up with will ALWAYS leads to selective enforcement.
How can you have "Equality" or "Congruency" with selective enforcement?
If his life doesn't depend on having it, and mine does, yes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
[ Volition never helped the cold, hungry, and infirm. ]
No, but Evolution is ALWAYS served and the fittest usually survive.
If people make dumbass decisions with their lives why are we supposed to "Play Creationist God" using Big Government to help those who make bad life decisions over and over again.....?
I say give the poor/dumb only 3-5 chances and after that too damn bad, either their family and friends take care of them or we let evolution take it's natural course.
Problably it's just me,
but I don't get the engineer - politician analogy
Mr Beck, I didn't suggest removal of the First and Second amendments from your "list of freedoms". I suggested that their original intent, as clearly expressed by the guys who wrote those amendments, have been perverted by nasty little shits like you, who would happily piss in a public swimming pool and say, "Hey, it's a free country! So that means I get to piss and shit in the public pool. You betcha!"
And I certainly did not call for "censorship", you pathetic coward.
It's people like you that pervert the meaning of the Second Amendment. Let's break it down a little bit, shall we? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first part: "a well regulated militia". In this they are clearly calling for a militia that is controlled by the government. That cannot be argued. However, one must also look at the definition of a militia. Militia are historically made up of local citizens, generally of a town or group of towns, that will on occasion get together and drill and practice, so as to be available to be called up for local defense in case of a conflict. Militia played a huge role in the Revolutionary War, bolstering the ranks of the Continental Army for a battle. The key point of a militia is that it is not equipped by the government. Equipment is privately purchased or crafted, and weapons are supplied by each individual militiaman. In the case of the Revolutionary War, militiamen used their own muskets or rifles that they would use for hunting or protection (in the case of some frontier areas). These were privately owned weapons, not government issue. The government only supplied the regular troops with equipment and weapons.
Now the second part: "necessary to the security of a free state". This says that militia are necessary for security. Note that the 2nd Amendment never mentions an army (an army is specifically addressed outside the Bill of Rights). For them to leave out the word 'army", they are clearly saying that the ability of local citizens to arm themselves and defend their home (not their house, but their town, their state, their country), is vital to the security of a state.
The third and fourth parts are just as easy to understand: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Look at the writings of the men that wrote the Constitution, the leading thinkers of that time. The phrase "the people" was always used as a stark contrast to the government. The phrase always meant the citizens, the common man, the farmer on his farm, and the merchant in the city. They are not talking about the governor, or the soldier, or elected representatives; these are all members or instruments of the government. Let's look at another famous phrase by these men for context: "a government of the people, by the people, for the people". This shows that the term "the people" is to be taken as distinct from "the government". And finally: "shall not be infringed". This means that this right, the right of the common man to possess and own firearms, should not be taken away without just cause (this right certainly can and at times should be forfeited, but that's another discussion).
Any logical, reasoned examination of the wording of the Second Amendment, especially when compared to contemporary writings of the writers of the Constitution and their peers, shows that they believed that gun ownership is extremely important. The fact that they chose to make it the second Amendment means that this right was held in their highest regards after the freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and religion. There is no need to try and interpret intent. Their intent is clearly spelled out.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Who exactly in the TFA is not using any government services? Police, fire, roads, military are services EVERYONE benefits from, no matter how "self sufficient" you claim to be. Even a mountain hermit benefits from the military, insofar as they guarantee foreign invaders won't just roll through his log cabin.
It's just that some self-important idiots have a strange belief in how much of an honor it is supposed to be to do all of the work for them. somthing you might expect in a four-year old, but not an adult.
So you're not really talking about taxes, you're talking about spending -- it's the use of the funds that determines whether or not the acquisition of them is theft.
Here's the thing, though -- that's not a distinction made by those in the Tea Party that I'm acquainted with. That's not a distinction I see made on signs I've seen at Tea Party rallies.
I've got a few more spending categories that the Tea Party seems to agree with, but I personally would put in the "theft" column: taxes to enrich defense contractors; taxes to enforce drug laws and incarcerate huge numbers of nonviolent offenders; taxes to give subsidies to established industries, like industrial agriculture.
What are the criteria by which the Tea Party determines what spending items represent a theft from taxpayers?
I've yet to have any Tea Party member enumerate a set of criteria that is not contradicted by Tea Party positions on specific issues... can you do so?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
by attending a massively subsidized university and achieving commercial success in an economy supported by the world's best public infrastructure and retired to play farmhand in kentucky and spout moronic theories of self reliance. big fn whoop.
Yeah I mean, they should have joined the peaceful OWS. Then they could join in with the public property destruction, theft, and rape. Can't forget the arsons, and attempt to blow up a bridge in Ohio a week or so back either. The Tea Party folks though? They're the terrorists.
I highly doubt that, but this one is an engineer.
That's what I would say about the transfer of wealth from my state to red states. That's what I would say about the transfer of wealth, via taxation and spending, from my state to states where the Tea Party is strongest.
Except I believe it is just, moral, and required for the wealthy to subsidize the poor, and the government is the most efficient way to make it so.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I listened to a This American Life episode recently where the town of Colorado Springs faced this reality when they voted against a tax increase, and government services like street lights and trash removal started shutting down.
Street lights wold go out, and people would call in to the government to fix it. They were basically told "We don't have the money to pay for that. Remember that tax increase you voted against last month? Yeah, that's why. If you'd like to send us a check for $100 we'd be happy to send someone out to fix it though."
the title says it.
[ That's the problem with every single Libertarian/Tea Partier in the US. They think that a lack of government simply means that they get no medicare in exchange for no taxes. What they fail to understand is that the political and social stability of the US is built on taxes as well. ]
That's the problem with every single Liberal in the U.S. They think that every Libertarian/Tea parties is for NO GOVERNMENT.... When actually they are for "Limited Government" which means there should be limits to what the government can do (like taking property rights from people) and limits to how much of the money they can get from taxes (like a 10% cap on all taxes), and limits to what legislation can be passed (no more multi-thousand page monstrosity bill that have all sorts of hidden crap in them), and limits to what the government can do to you and you currently established rights (upholding the right to free speech, the right to practice Religion, and the right for self defense/weapon ownership).
Repeat after me, the people who want No Government (Anarchy) are called Anarchists. The People who want Limited Government and a return to a "Constitutional Republic" and sensible federal spending are Libertarians/Tea Parties.
Libertarians/Tea Partiers think that the Federal Government should only do things that are prescribed in the constitution, you know things like National Defense, Protecting the Borders, Making sure the states don't end up with trade wars between each other, upholding the inherent rights of the citizens so the states don't trample on People's rights in the bill of rights. They also think that some of the "social things" the Federal government does should be sent to the States so that the 50 state "Laboratories" can find out what works best for each of them.
Also, How can the "oh so tolerant" Liberals/Democrats be for Gay rights and then turn around and use the Gay slur "Tea Bagger" to describe people they disagree with?????
taxes aren't stealing, they have been a part of every civilization since the dawn of time. it's time to put the rand novels where they belong, where the sears catalog used to go in the outhouse.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Basically for about 4 months of every year I am working for the government and only for the government. For that period of time I am not benefiting from my own labor at all.
Not benefiting at all? Really? Ever drive on a road? Ever go to a public school? Ever go to the park? Ever use any of these technologies derived from government research? Where do you think the money comes from to pay for these things?
Hell, you obviously use the internet, which was made possible in a large part due to DARPA, along with other technologies you probably benefit from daily in your cushy first world life including RADAR, GPS, helicopters, jet engines, tanks, atomic power, and soon to be autonomous vehicles.
How much extra does that other person have to have? $5, $100, $1000, $10000?
What if it is your neighbor's life that depends on it and not you?
Is your life the maximum bound of your willingness to steal from another or could you go with something less important than your life?
Are you an advocate for forcibly removing a kidney from someone who has two kidneys and giving it to someone who needs a kidney transplant? What about a partial liver? What about bone marrow?
You're pedantically sorta right except that it's completely impractical. If you don't want to pay taxes, you get to give up your right to private property, since presumably, you would accept that you're on your own in protecting it. Okay, fine. Propose to me a system where by the police do not respond to a theft in progress before checking to see if said property belongs to somebody who has pre-emptively given up their right to private property.
Here's a clue: a right is a man made thing. Nobody has any rights. At all. But they do have 'rights' as defined by law. If you arn't going to pay for the enforcement of those rights, under the pretense that it doesn't waste any of your neighbours tax contributions (you're free to argue that, but you are simply in the historical wrong) them, guess what, we're gunna come over with a bunch of thugs, and threaten to put you in the jails we pay for, unless you /help/ pay for the practical solution of the general will of society.
You couldn't be an island even if you tried. In the above scenario, you'd probably gang up with some folks so that you all shared the responsibility of protecting each others' properties. Okay, cool, how are you gunna fund that responsibility? You'd pool some resources together, and bang - guess what, now you're trying to claim sovereignty. So just do it and see how far it gets you. I'm prepared to call the government 'a bunch of people who put people in jail if you don't pay the 1000$'.
as for "with a demand you stop smoking pot, a demand you stop drinking milk from a cow, or your stereo is 'too loud' and you tell the cops they need a warrant before coming on your property"
This is not a just world. This is not a meritocracy. Stop acting like a big baby, and work to change the system. You don't get to declare the extent of your involvement with other people on your own terms alone. It's a physical impossibility.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Besides,
We already build the world, don't ask us to govern it too.
The banks didn't get bailed out until near the end of Bush's term when he started making liberal economic policies. Please explain why people would be pissed off years before an event happened.
Besides, nothing in my post said they had a monopoly on it. Not sure where you got that either.
... wasn't disappointed.
I'm not talking about spending, not tax burden as percentage of GDP.
You said money going to the government. If you were talking about spending, you should have said so.
Our spending compared to GDP is higher right now than it was in recent history because of three factors:
1) Expansion of Medcare (part D)
2) Two (+) Unfunded Wars
3) Economic contraction from the great recession
Through almost all of the eighties, spending as a percentage of GDP was above 35%, which is not significantly higher than it is now. In the seventies, it was in the low to mid thirties and our debt as a percentage of GDP was going down. IN terms of debt, the big difference between the seventies and eighties, was that revenues were slashed.
(although the claim that it is "historically low" and that ridiculous chart are laughable, as they will be historically high as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire),
The claim and that chart represent facts. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you get to discount them in your argument. As for the burden being historically high, it needs to be historically high in order to pay for our government and pay down out debts.
We live in a time when people seem to think that "distribution of wealth" is something that governments are suddenly capable of doing when history has REPEATEDLY shown otherwise
Absolutely nonsense. One of government core function is to redistribute wealth. The middle class of the U.S. was entirely built upon the forced redistribution of wealth by the government through highly progressive tax rates and labor friendly laws.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
The Euro zone is in lousy shape ... but hey, at least it manages to pay it's way in aggregate (ie. running a trade balance). When is the last time the US could actually afford it's consumption habits?
Mutually beneficial and consensual contributions and taxes are not the same thing. Also there are other forms of pressure beside government force.
Republicans and Democrats do not like paying money to crooked bankers, cronies of local politicians, corrupt unions. (The inference that you think they do is amusing, since presumably these corrupt individuals couldn't possibly be Tea Party, and therefore would be Republicans and Democrats. Yet I wasn't aware that corrupt people like wasting their own money.) So sure, corrupt people steal money. The idea that Tea Party politicians would be systematically immune to wasting tax money is hilarious. Let us know when you find that magical stick that identifies how you achieve 100% tax base efficiency. All I hear is, "Bad tax bad! Good tax good!" Your local essential services waste tax dollars just as well as the bankers (although obviously not at the same scale.) When I say I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of wastage to support single payer health care, you say you are not. But the notion that any one system is inherently less prone than another abuse is naive and a prime example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Can you somehow link it to Nazism ? Then, according to a powerful Law Of Mr Godwin, all discussion would cease.
Democrats would never be so rude and insulting.
LOL, now your kidding!
I think an awful lot of these people were saying something when Bush was in office, but there wasn't the singularity of voice. There were grumblings about the wars, the patriot act, the movement towards a police state, government debt, etc. But there was little solidarity. There was distinct momentum building that direction in early 2007 with Ron Paul supporters for his bid in the 2008 election held a Tea Party event. You bet, many of these individuals were firmly against the bank bailouts when Bush's administration started down that road. The way I see it, the Tea Party largely rose as a response towards disappointment in the Republican party's leadership.
However, by the time the movement really started to gel, Obama was already in the White House. That's about the same time mainline GOP neocons saw how popular the movement was becoming, and that's about when it was infiltrated and its former purpose usurped. They took advantage of the movement's loose affiliation, grabbed the reins and made the biggest noise as TV talking heads.
Instead of being the voice of pro-small-government, pro-liberty, and pro-state's rights, it was now distilled into an anti-Obama, pro-GOP rhetoric machine. Make no mistake, many of the Tea Party's original supporters are disillusioned from what it has become, which is essentially a re-branding of typical republican neoconservativism, with 10% more populism.
You wanna see a real Tea Party affiliate? Look around the net, they're there. They're about as unsure of what evils Mitt Romney, (being a gun controlling, healthcare-passing, big government loving, Massachusetts RINO) might bring to the presidency, as they are uneasy of 4 more years of Obama, and what he might do as a lame duck president. I see so much dislike for Mitt and the other candidates (excluding Ron Paul of course) and dislike of the infighting during the primaries, so much that folks just might vote Obama or third party to spite the GOP.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
..quite good. Lifted their country out of the shit in a matter of 30 years to #2. Weren't fucked by "freedom" Banker-Robbers. Building lots of nuclear reactors, which highly pisses BP, $hell, Exxon, Haliburton etc.
Yes.
I get paid for something that is enmeshed in a credit-based economy. So the natural limits of Chekov's navigation metaphor are constantly being obfuscated by the inflationary world around me.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Your view of what the teparty is is not congruent with reality.
Sorry, you are simply wrong.
Not about staying in any country but do try and do that old tax evasion thing to uncle Sam and see how far you get. If you are a citizen of the U.S or for that matter any country they force you to pay their taxes.
and they didnt say shit about anything like the deficit when republicans were in power
Lies
just when a black muslin
and slander.
The folks who make up the tea party were unhappy with W's left leaning rubber stamping of borrow-and-spend, but were silent until a worse spender (whom they rightly assumed would okay mote taxes) came up to the plate. His color and fabric(muslin?) have nothing to do with the subject.
..the current political class of America is as capable as Mao. Yes, I think you nailed it.
When actually they are for "Limited Government" which means there should be limits to what the government can do (like taking property rights from people) and limits to how much of the money they can get from taxes (like a 10% cap on all taxes), and limits to what legislation can be passed (no more multi-thousand page monstrosity bill that have all sorts of hidden crap in them), and limits to what the government can do to you and you currently established rights (upholding the right to free speech, the right to practice Religion, and the right for self defense/weapon ownership).
And that's the other problem with Libertarians/Tea Partiers: they have no clue what things cost or how politics work. Their ideas on cost are so unrealistic that they might as well campaign on funding the military, the legal system, and the public works via unicorn farts. Their ideas on politics are based on "I've got mine, fuck you", which makes cooperation impossible.
Libertarians/Tea Partiers think that the Federal Government should only do things that are prescribed in the constitution,
And the final problem with Libertarians/Tea Partiers is that they think that there is exactly one interpretation to the Constitution: theirs. They miss the delicious irony of complaining about people not understanding the Constitution, when there is no way for the English language to be specific enough that a 1 page document can provide an exact to every political problem.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The majority of a group are those who matter, while the rest are merely enablers.
The TeaPublicans are little more than religious fanatics, and relentlessly demonstrate that by their choice of politicians.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
You'll stay modded down, but you nailed it perfectly.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Taxes are voluntary in the same way home rent is voluntary - you're free to not pay it, but you need to move out then.
So if the government starts a tax on the air you breathe, you can free not to breathe?
Taxation is unjust. Forced taxation is unjust.
You're free to move to another country.
Can't find a country without taxes to your liking?
Maybe those taxes are actually doing something worthwhile.
I stole this Sig
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Excessive competition often results in shady practices. Getting bad service on a car stereo is a different realm than having your spleen F'd up by EnronCare & Associates....and not finding out about it until EC&A has mysteriously closed shop.
Table-ized A.I.
Obviously you don't run a business, trade stocks, inherit something, donate something, or any number of other activities that makes taxes a hell of a lot harder than just filling out a 1040.
The taxes I just filed a while ago had like 50 pages. Then I had at least as many pages of state taxes to several states. It took me days to work through all that crap and that was with software helping me, doing it by hand would have taken me months.
Do many of those people live within ~30 miles of one another? If so, I'd surely like to visit your district sometime. Must be interesting.
The claim and that chart represent facts. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you get to discount them in your argument. As for the burden being historically high, it needs to be historically high in order to pay for our government and pay down out debts.
Calling a chart with 5 data points going back to 1975 that are seemingly chosen at random intervals (although I suspect they were cherry picked) as proof that taxes are "historically low" is the definition of misrepresenting facts. Why does the chart start with 10 year data points, then go to 5 years for 1990-2005? Are those averages or the tax rate on that fifth/tenth year? Did you not notice that even with this data set, the 2005 tax rate is right in the middle of the pack? Not to mention that this is now 7 years out of date. Do you think this trend has continued since the economy crashed in 2008 and the GDP stopped growing 5%+ as it was in the early-mid 2000s ? What about when the Bush era cuts expire? What was the tax burden in 1970, or 1960?
I agree with your three examples of government spending programs that have gotten completely out of hand, and if you read the original quote that I posted from Massie, that is exactly the type of thing he is campaigning against. I also appreciate your optimism regarding a over-arching, benevolent, efficient, government that can Robin Hood it's way through the economy. But I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken about the reality of big government. The term "bread and circuses" might ring a bell as it was used in the popular Gladiator movie to describe a very real phenomenon that is well documented in the primary sources from 2000+ years ago. Prominent Roman intellectuals and historians of that era debated the virtues of redistributing wealth right up to the bitter end; when the empire came crashing down around them. More modern examples abound, but I think it would be a wasted effort to continue down that road considering the context of this conversation so far.
Over and out.
its citizens have have collectively decided
[CITATION NEEDED]
Seriously, I'm a citizen and I was never asked my opinion about income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The government forces it on you - the best you can do is vote for a different person and HOPE that they will lower taxes.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Taxes for Constitutionally authorized functions of the government (military, police, etc) are not theft. Taxes for the explicit purpose of transferring money from one person or group of people to another person or group of people are theft. That's the thing people like you don't grasp - there is more than one type of tax. Some are a necessary evil, others exist to punish one group and reward another - those taxes are theft.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Seriously, I'm a citizen and I was never asked my opinion about income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The government forces it on you - the best you can do is vote for a different person and HOPE that they will lower taxes.
That's how representative democracy works.
I do agree that it's not a perfect arrangement, especially when we finally have the technology to implement true direct democracy on things that matter (which taxes, undeniably, are). But that's a different issue.
Except that I'm sure the government could have cut the bloated pay for their workers or eliminated unnecessary jobs. They screwed with the traffic lights and trash collection to fuck with the citizens and try to force them to vote for higher taxes. All the more reason to vote those people out of office and vote in someone who'll clean up the bloat.
On another note: There are places in the US where the government does garbage pickup? I've always lived in places where you pay for that directly and there's usually multiple places you can choose from so if you don't like the price at one place you can switch to another.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
And what is that point?
Interesting since the tea party I'm thinking about came about long before 2008. It's possible it was subverted, and if so, that's too bad, but the stated principles seem like the right way to go. Having a government that respects budgets and cannot just arbitrarily borrow to make up shortfalls is a good thing for ex.
I pay $40 for software and do my own taxes in about 15 minutes. I don't know WTF your mom is doing....
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/about/
Just thought I would inject a few facts into the smear campaign. I'm a Libertarian, and I haven't really understood exactly what the Tea Party stands for or what made them decide not to simply join the Libertarian Party, a pro-freedom political group that had already existed for many years.
1. They want lower taxes, but they aren't specific about how low. They also don't say anything specific about how they feel about borrowing money. So their position is kind of vague. Libertarians tend to believe in either no taxes at all or a very small, single digit flat tax or VAT and they don't try to substitute borrowed money for tax money.
2. They see the constitution as a document that limits the government and not the citizens. Presumably that means actually interpreting the 9th amendment literally. This sounds very close to the Libertarian position. The only difference may be that Libertarians tend to argue for the philosophy that lies behind the constitution and the bill of rights and tend to speak about things like "natural rights". Libertarians don't tend to rely on the constitution as if it were a kind of holy document, but instead will discuss people like John Locke or other Enlightenment philosophers who so strongly influenced the ideas of the men who wrote the constitution. It's not clear to me how comfortable Tea Partiers are discussing the philosophy behind their positions.
3. The free market = good. Here they do sound like Libertarians.
Unfortunately that summary mentions nothing about personal freedoms. Although if they do truly support a direct, literal interpretation of the constitution then that would at least somewhat take care of their position on the current encroachment of the police state. Republicans tend to be even more in favor of a police state than Democrats. If the Tea Party really is in favor of personal freedoms they should state that explicitly as that is a serious problem with Republicans.
Although I try to avoid wikipedia when it comes to controversial subjects because it often tends to have inaccurate information, the wikipedia entry seems rather interesting in this case. The wiki entry
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Taxes are your obligation. A society would collapse quickly without them, and it is an absurdist fantasy to imagine that any society could long stand with a purely voluntary system.
The mere fact that you can accumulate any kind of wealth is because society has created through various means an environment in which it is possible, at least without the dedication of a substantial portion of that wealth to protecting it.
You are in no way solely responsible for what you earn. What is afforded to you is the right to choose those who will tax you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote/
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Lysander Spooner throughly debunked your position well over a century ago.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Taxes to fund things like roads, police, military, FDA, etc aren't stealing. Taxes to transfer wealth from one group to another are stealing. The latter is no different than you pulling a gun and robbing someone to pay for your own bills - the only difference being that people like you believe it's "good" because the government says that they have the right to do it on your behalf.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Jesus you Libertarians go to astonishing lengths to justify what amounts to near sociopathic selfishness. No government since civilization was invented has been able to survive without an at least somewhat predictable revenue stream, and that means an infrastructure to estimate and collect taxes.
Nothing the Founding Fathers said or wrote backed the notion that any citizen could voluntarily pay taxes or not. The debate was never whether to tax or not, but rather who has the right to create and impose taxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He didn't "debunk" my position, he simply disagreed with the initial premises, just like any other anarchist.
My later father beat the IRS "tax court" sixteen times. Prior to obtaining a law degree he was a practicing Engineer however non-licensed. When the IRS sought funding to create a software package capable of being used by IRS agents for their use, his comment was essentially: they are fools to think that the politicians who gave the IRS the authority to write the code in the first place INTENDED it to be ANYTHING other than an excuse to do exactly what is in the US Declaration of Independence, namely - He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
REFUSAL to intellectually recognize that the purpose of the tax code is to harass, NOT to collect revenue, is a sign of both deliberate ignorance, and a weak understanding of the original intent of the formation of this nation to remove any authority of kingdoms and other forms of popery.
Fucking beta.
No, the people you are talking about are called "Republicans" or "Fox anchors." The Tea Party was started in 2007 by Ron Paul, when Bush still had nearly two years left in office, and its main goal was to keep Bush from getting re-elected again.
They failed. And now it looks like we're almost certain to get a fourth term, too.
You know, like with OWS. They have their rape, destruction, public defication platform. What does the Tea Party have in comparison with those?
sig: sauer
Taxes for Constitutionally authorized functions of the government (military, police, etc) are not theft. Taxes for the explicit purpose of transferring money from one person or group of people to another person or group of people are theft.
And what you don't get is that the English language isn't nearly precise and specific enough to make your interpretation of the Constitution the only possible one. Constitutionally authorized functions are much larger than just military and police, and say nothing about how big it needs to be. Not to mention that you fail to understand how a government works.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Sorry, but the reality is that it is the right-wingers that are impossible to have a discussion with. For example, you're to chicken to even post with a real account.
It's the Republicans that have become increasingly impossible to compromise with, especially over the last 20 years. Even when you have a deal, they'll attempt to reneg (e.g. debt sequestration and cuts to the DoD).
Read http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
Hell, even moderate Republicans are getting squeezed out, e.g. Lugar.
Unfortunately, the bill is hardly "transparent" by most people's definition just because they can read the words in it. Being able to read something and being able to understand it easily are two different things. For example, I think it's likely most people and news reporters think that if a state fails to create an exchange, thereby enabling its residents to utilize the Federal exchange, that those residents utilizing the Federal exchange and with sufficiently low income will receive a tax credit for some portion of their premium - just as if they had participated in a (unavailable) state exchange. This, however, is not what the PPACA says.
The IRS is rumored to be ignoring this and preparing programs to provide tax credits for those who utilize the Federal exchange as if they had utilized an (unavailable) state exchange (although, they may have backed off on this by now that the have been called out on it last year -- I don't have a good way of checking). Although I don't expect the PPACA to survive the SCOTUS decision (at least the parts having to do with mandates, tax credits, minimum coverage, and eliminating rating/acceptance based on preexisting conditions), if it does, this tax credit issue will likely be the one of the next PPACA related court battles if the IRS continues to ignore the law.
For one read on this, see this post.
I assume this was an intentional feature of the law (perhaps intended to punish residents of states that didn't establish a state level exchange and motivate their residents to demand that one be established) that the IRS lawyers just didn't understand suggesting that it's not as "transparent" as it seems. If one claims it was an "error" that 435 representatives and staff, 100 senators and staff, and POTUS and staff missed, that would belie claims of careful vetting and careful consideration of the bill.
BTW, many of those who currently would identify as Tea Party supporters were outraged by G W Bush's "huge new medicare benefit". The Tea Party of course didn't exist yet -- it's hard to fault a group that hadn't yet formed for failing to oppose something before the group even existed!
The US had one mathematician as president and he was assassinated. (James A. Garfield)
There are just as many points of view within science as without it considering scientists, who are few in number are abundant in hypotheses.
"Congratulations for proving why discussion with left-wingers is a waste of time."
That sounds suspiciously like a confession that you seldom win the discussion. Thank you for at least being honest.
Sometimes. But, sometimes they take a step back, design a test they all agree on and take into account the results.
Testing for the effectiveness of say "trickle down economics", "small government efficacy", "methodologies on crime prevention", "effective techniques for 'winning hearts and minds'", "effects of levels of social justice", "effects on a society of removal of habeous corpous."
Are simple questions that can be solved. I have yet to see a government report that seemed to span a sufficient amount of historical data to achieve a measurable direction or outcome objective (Some of the information coming from DARPA qualifies, as does much of my reading on Nuclear War and it's outcomes). It's disturbing how much pie in the sky I see. Actually, personally I feel it's from the right. All of the standard of living indicators show that socialist countries in the north of Europe are doing quite well.
I have also noticed that people don't really enjoy knowing that someone is smarter than they are. They vastly prefer unquantified random shifts in policy, procedure and even justice to rational solutions. Simply because being rational tends to have a finality to it that qualifies and quantifies parts of their lives than having a place assigned them, it does seem like the elimination of freedom. But it leads to a political and policy climate of pounding flesh, kissing babies, and psychopathic self centered individuals in power. Certainly the mantra "profit at any cost" is one that seems to have the most adherents and cohesion between those adherents. Not having ethics or morals certainly makes everything easier. Hell, most people just assume they have both and never read or view anything that might put that in jeopardy circumventing the issue completely.
I don't think the IRS is about to murder your wife, but they are perfectly within in the law to make sure that you pay your fair share. That is not the problem. The problem is all those guys who find it advantageous to claim they owe less than their fair share of taxes have now gotten away with so effectively that they try to elect guys like Mitt Romney, so they won't have to pay anything at all ever. They will just be able to steal it outright by giving the government away to themselves in the name of making it smaller. Paying the consequences will be left to the those who can't afford it. Ironically, a complete repudiation of the teachings of Jesus, but then again its politics and Romney is Mormon, so there you have it.
Why aren't people complaining that goods cost ridiculous amounts while the technology to produce said goods has been a product of the public and increasing exponentially?
This may sound like socialism, but really it's just a complaint about "what the market can bear" and the problems of competition imposed by patents, regulation and automation.
However, science can certainly inform and motivate these arguments. For a simple example, studies of humans "playing" the ultimatum game may provide insight into human nature. Such insight could properly inform public policy regarding how much of a role government should/should not play. Such insights, of course, are not sufficient to determine public policy because the system is too complex for us to understand with current technology (or that in the foreseeable future).
Sorry Wiseguy, but my state (Texas) is a net exporter of taxes.
And don't look too close, but you have a lot of folks aligned wit the Tea Party in New Jersey.
As I said, legitimate use of Tax dollars is ok. Taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves is a legitimate use.
Taking care of lazy mother fuckers is not.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If its a civic duty, is it any longer a "volunteering"?
It's cute that you think "owning" your land means anything absent the protections of the state in the first place.
Don't confuse Tea Party with anarchists.
People who think that small, focused and limited government is the same as no government have been drinking heavily from the Stupid Fountain.
You would be better off address your comments to one of those significant portions of the OWS crowd.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sure there is and we are on course to shortly test it, human extinction.
Wow. I pay about $400 per year to have my taxes done. You make $400 an hour? What do you do?
One knows one is loosing an argument on having to pay their taxes, when they start trying to equivocate being forced to pay their taxes with having to forcibly give up their kidney.
The government isn't in such a need for kidneys at the moment that they won't be happy to just house you in a cell for a few years and even pay for your meals, so that when your time is up, you can again decide if you don't want to pay your taxes again. I have read little in either court transcripts, the newspapers, or seen in the media few reports of people being forced to give up their kidneys to the IRS, but maybe rates are higher in your area.
Yes, but state enforcement of social norms is by far the cheapest and most effective way to keep citizens in line. Long experiments like letting bankers regulate themselves has a way of turning out perversely. Likewise, the libertarian notion that we all can be individual Roman Empors is not particularly workable. Better that we democratically elect representatives with enough sense to recognize the essential character and importance of taxes and taxation, rather trying to put in place people, who know nothing about taxes other than that they don't like them and don't want to pay them and consequently the government and thus directly most of the people and the planet suffer as a result.
... are so misinformed as to make their political views and opinions invalid. Just looking at american slashdotters talk about 'the left' or 'the liberals' is informative at how effective american media has been at propaganda. If you don't think you are a victim of propaganda I would point you to this talk here:
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc
As someone who lives in canada, we know that THERE IS NO LEFT IN NORTH AMERICA anymore. Canada for a long time was a little left of center then america but that stopped 30 some years ago (around 1970's) and we've been on the same hard right path as america ever since. Our "liberals" are really conservatives in terms of ideology (pro corporate, anti public welfare). They've been making the same policy choices along american lines and now with harper and co, harper is stealth privatizing healthcare by making uninformed ideologically driven cuts to evidence based government policies and downloading federal deficit onto the provinces.
You can't talk politics in north america anymore with any kind of sanity at all. The human mind does not work like a rational machine and I think the more you understand about the limitations of your own mind, the less emotional investment you have in your own political views - because you know your response is based on flawed brain structures you inherited that force you to interpret the world in a particular way without your consent.
> military
ok got it.
$364 per month in food stamps to help the lady next door feed herself and her kid because her husband took off on them and doesn't pay child support = evil
9001billioneleventy to raytheon and lockheed for weapons to kill people who live on the other side of the world from us = good
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
"The banks didn't get bailed out until near the end of Bush's term when he started making liberal economic policies."
What liberal economic policies? Giving more away to his "base" faster?
The banks didn't get bail out until Bush created the economic disaster to insure that they would need it. The amazing thing is that they got away with it. Republicans destroy the economy just to profit from it.
One of the unfortunate consequences of being human. It makes one wonder if this will lead to the creation of drones that ultimately programmed to evaluate and optimize the output of other drones that then form a decision tree and then send it to the optimization drone for implementation and then finally back to the enforcer drone, who will then decide whether or not to take the human out.
"an unwieldy, chaotic group"
Basically, its the humanity that Ruppert Murdoch has used up and then realized he had to discard. Consequently, the T-Party is made up of odd elements from all over the viewing spectrum. Consequently, the only thing now largely holding it together are about 40-50 cliques within the organization that are vying to lead it in one inconsequential direction or another fighting for a dwindling funding base now that Murdoch no longer has a need for them, based on the latest variation of the new conspiracy theory of government, where its a conspiracy to raise taxes on wealthy guys like Ruppert Murdoch.
"Just stop taxing us so much, and get the hell out of our lives."
Funny, how 6.7 billion other people on the planet have a way of intruding on everyone's lives these days doesn't it. Get used to it. Its only going to get even hotter, and more crowded and that will mean the need for higher taxes, unless you can find a way to support so many humans, without destroying the last vestiges of the ecosystems that support them and which are disappearing because we as a species can't find a useful way to face reality.
the tea party doesnt want government in their lives, OR THE LIVES OF ANYONE ELSE, including people who may need government support to stay alive. pure solipsistic selfishness. if you dont like government support, dont take it.
Maybe we need a federal program to move those red folks in blue states to red state and those blue folks in red states to blue states and then cut out most of the federal government except that specifically indicated in the constitution. I'm going to hold out that everyone should get a one time subsidy of $150,000 per person for five years, payable in Fort Knox bullion for moving. Independents can move to southern Alaska if they want to collect travel aid, where the sky's are gray all year round and where there are presently very few people, except when they get off of tour ships.
Your "argument" isn't about facts, it's about emotion. You want to use some sob story to justify theft. It doesn't matter if every bad thing in the world happened to you and your life is horrible as a result, theft is still wrong.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
You have a bizarre notion of "voluntary"
So does the IRS. They too consider income tax to be a "voluntary contribution", even though they'll put you in the hoosegow for not contributing.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There are plenty of big government, anti-citizens rights countries out there - why destroy the one country that tried to give people freedom when you could move to a pre-existing "utopia"?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Massie explains why he left the haptics firm years ago
Because the guy whose ideas and work he'd been stealing and passing off as his got tired of that.
its citizens have have collectively decided
[CITATION NEEDED]
Seriously, I'm a citizen and I was never asked my opinion about income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The government forces it on you - the best you can do is vote for a different person and HOPE that they will lower taxes.
You are given the opportunity to voice your opinion during every election. Perhaps not enough people agree with you to make it law, but you have ample opportunity to express it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That's how representative democracy works
Yes, but it stops working when we essentially have one party and you have little to no say in who the candidates are.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Nothing more to add, (agree to disagree) but just FYI...
I got some of my numbers from here. You can make your own charts on the fly. Really cool.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Nothing the Founding Fathers said or wrote backed the notion that any citizen could voluntarily pay taxes or not.
They were all dead and cold a century or more before this nation imposed an income tax. They wouldn't have had an opinion on it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
$364 per month in food stamps to the lady next door because she chose to reproduce with a loser = Unconstitutional
9001billioneleventy to the lowest bidder for weapons to kill people who are threats to us or our allies = Constitutional
FTFY
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Uggh. Mary Landrieu.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Yes. If they are acting like egotistic assholes, they'll be treated as such.
True. But then the problem isn't with the taxes, it's with the system of government.
Sounds about right, especially what I've experienced in the last year or so especially while visiting various universities in Canada and the US.
Freedom of speech offers no protection from being marked down because your work is a) factually inaccurate OR b) reflective of your poor thinking skills.
You mean the one that Democrats prevented anyone from investigating or fixing for years? The videos from C-Span are on youtube. Educate yourself.
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." --William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
If they get enough people like Massie in the Tea Party, they might bring up the average IQ into triple digits.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
3. the earth is only 6000 years old 4. Sara Palin 5. Michele Bachmann 3 more reasons to vote Tea Party.........
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Well, let's see now...
Democrat congressman Charlie Rangle, who WROTE many of the tax laws could not figure them out and ended-up cheating on his taxes
Obama's Treasury Secretary ,Timothy Geitner, WHO WOULD HAPPILY SEIZE YOUR PAYCHECKS AND PROPERTY AND TOSS YOU IN JAIL for tax evasion, could not do his taxes, and when caught cheating blamed Turbo Tax (hence his nickname "Turbo Tax Tim")
The tax code is now thousands of pages of legalese written and re-written by full-time staffs of lawyers and lobbyists and is so complex that even lawyers hire other lawyers to help them with their taxes... but you seem to think an engineer with no formal training in the law generally, or tax law specifically, is an idiot if he needs help on his taxes?????
OK, genius, spend the next two days reading the ENTIRE U.S. Tax code and then return here to give a full report on what you have learned... I predict you will have learned that the tax code is so complex, and written in such mind-numbing lingo, that you still have no idea what it says or how to comply with it. Hint: even the IRS admits it does not understand the tax laws and they have argued in court that citizens should not trust the answers they are given by the IRS in response to requests for help. DOH!
even joseph mengele graduated at some point (in anthropology). this one is just another gunloving anarchist.
it's not like it wasn't being debated for six months prior
It was not. A general concept was being publicly debated, but not the actual bill, which was being crafted behind closed doors (even though Obama promised in his 2008 campaign that all negotiations would be conducted "live on C-SPAN". What actually happened was the Democrats on capitol hill not only did their work behind closed doors where the citizens could neither see nor hear any of the actual negotiations, but they actually changed the locks on the doors so that no Republicans could get into the rooms to participate... so much for "openness"
it's largely what Massachusetts has had for years prior
That alone is a reason to run away from it screaming....
oh, and was originally created and promulgated by Republican think-tanks
No... one think tank (Heritage Foundation, which is closely tied to republican business interests) suggested the individual mandate as one solution to the problem of Democrats offering "free" healthcare to everybody; like many insular groups seeking a simple answer to a complex problem they latched onto the "personal responsibility" part of the mandate and did not adequately realize what any rank-and-file conservative could easily see: any such mandate would be applied to the middle class, but the poor and illegals (all the people currently getting "free" care) would be exempted and still be getting "free care"...
it's not some massive dumping of cash into Obama's offshore account.
nobody important said it was
Its transparent, you can read it
No, it was put together in secret, voted on without being read, and it granted huge power to a vast army of government bureaucrats, none of whom are elected or in any way accountable to the voters. These bureaucrats, most of whom will never be identified to the American people, are currently writing THOUSANDS of pages of new regulations. They are still writing the regulations that govern the parts of the law that are now in place and what's now in place is just a tiny portion of what will start kicking-in in 2014. They will still be writing the regulations a decade from now. You cannot read something which is still being written or is still in the fanciful imagination of some bureaucrat
its complicated BECAUSE THE U.S. HEALTH SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED, it's a sincere effort to solve a big, complicated, longstanding problem.
No, it is complicated because an army of lawyers, lobbyists and politicians all sought to bring into reality a century-old wet dream of the Left (free universal health care) while protecting all the self-interests of the lawyers, lobbyists and politicians involved and ignoring the fundamental problem of the promise of "free stuff"... namely that some people must work to make/provide the "free stuff" (in this case, doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers, technicians providing care, drugs, devices, supplies, etc) and those people (the providers) have a basic human right to be properly compensated. If this had been a "sincere effort" as you put it, the it would have been done out-in-the-open with all negotiations "live on C-SPAN" and we would not now be learning (news broke yesterday) that the Democrats in the Senate and the Obama administration kept their negotiations with big pharma so secret that they kept the details away even from the house Democrats. The House is currently seeking details of this deal and the administration is refusing to hand them over
Yes, Ben Nelson got a bribe. Congress took it back from him later, look at the Congressional Quarterly if you want the details.
Half the Democrats in congress got special deals if you include all the exemptions, carve-outs, subsidies, etc that were handed out like candy by Obama and Reid and Pelosi to various Democrat interest groups... and given that the rules are still being written, people are still finding new stuff..
You are an idiot.
The "Tea Party" is not a political party. Do you see them having a convention? A Platform?
Think of it as the reasonable, calm version of OWS. It's a bunch of like minded people who are tired of the fucking government taking taking and taking and in fact giving what they take to the loser OWS crowd.
People talk about how the Tea Party went away. It didn't, they have jobs and a life. No time to crap on Police cars and spread VD in some rat infested camp.
The Tea Party is an idea. That Government should live within its means. That it shouldn't be spending OUR money like it was piss water. You may disagree about what it spends it on, but regardless, it should only spend what it takes in.
So there are no specific issues except for one. Stop the God Damned spending us into financial oblivion.
Fuckers, every last one of them.
You are also an idiot.
Who mentioned Health Care? That must be what you jack off to at night (probably during the day, at your desk...assuming you even have a job)
And, moron, we are not talking about different "systems" we are talking about simple fiscal restraint. Don't spend what you DON"T FUCKING HAVE!
And certainly don't give it away to people that fucked up in the first place.
Slashdot, land of the fucking idiots.
Stupid cunts like you is why Slashdot really sucks ass sometimes.
Also who think voluntary money paid to support society is theft,
- voluntary. That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
You can't handle the truth.
What they fail to understand is that the political and social stability of the US is built on taxes as well.
- stability.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
You can't handle the truth.
Historically low for those who don't pay them and historically high for those who do.
You can't handle the truth.
Because they are still providing you something. The government provides the national security to keep the land safe from invading force. The local police provide local law enforcement. There's the education system that helped him get the know-how to get to where he is today. Then there's fire services, health services, and a bunch of other soft services that cannot exist without a central government to manage it. Those solar panels he's using came from an industry that couldn't have even existed without the stability that the government provided.
And where do all those services (that people seem to take for granted) come from? Taxes.
The problem is that a lot of these services are expensive to maintain even if they're not always needed. Maintaining the infrastructure to handle various emergencies cost a lot of money. Everyone hopes that they're never needed, but want it available just in case. That requires money from somewhere. Either everyone pays a little to maintain it, or the individuals who do need it can be helped, but the individual cost is so great that the likehood the individual can or will pay it back is exceedingly poor, so either the service cannot exist or some other draconian measure is required.
I can't remember where it was, but there's a town that permitted people to only voluntarily pay the fire dept taxes. Someone refused to pay that tax, because they were cheap and also because thought that the city would still help them anyway. Lo and behold, a fire broke out. The fire trucks came... and made sure the fire didn't spread to the neighbours lands. Said person's house and posessions were completely obliterated. Just to make a sad situation even more sad/funny, the son attacked the fire chief in blind rage for not saving their home.
So yeah... I think the moral of that story pretty much speaks for itself.
Ownership is only enforced by the state, without taxes why should they enforce your ownership of it? There are no people taking nothing from the state.
Feel free to leave the USA and not pay it. I here Somalia has very low taxes. You will find though that no place you actually would want to live can be without taxes no have them as low as you want.
When we we get to vote on Mafia leaders?
How is it that you make these messages appear on slashdot without any government aid to the telcos you use, or the base research that invented it? You never use roads, police, hospitals? You have no property at all that you rely on the state to ensure your rights to?
You can even choose a new place to pay taxes too, or not pay taxes too. Somalia has a nice low tax structure.
The Palestinians are another set of dickbags all together. I would not call them the cause of their own misery, but pretty damn close.
Both sides are a bunch of assholes that don't deserve a nation nor the support of reasonable people.
Obama is many things, but this Biden gaffe was no gaffe, this was well planned by his media people.
So you want all the advantages that come with taxation, but not to pay for it?
How is that different than any other welfare leech?
As I said: "I pay someone else to do it." The programmer of the software did all the work of reading through booklets and understanding the convolutions of the tax code. And my mom? No computer. She does it herself.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I don't like their system of handouts, if I did I would gladly move there.
I've been reading his blog for years, and I wouldn't call him a "gun-toting tea party survivalist". That's a meme-loaded caricature that honestly just doesn't fit the man.
Now, he's a devoted follower of Rand Paul, which tells me that I couldn't vote for him. The son is not the father! But Massie is neither a super-trustworthy ultra-genius nor a serial-killer-worshipping Ayn Rand clone, he's a fairly normal politically naive idiot just like the ones nearly every slashdotters see when they look in the mirror in the morning.
The only problem with that is that he's with the Tea Party, which kind of blows a hole in your argument.
Not necessarily. BTW, I used to be a former Tea Party sympatizer... at the very, very early stage up and until it got to bed with right-wing, homophobe creationist radicals bent on attacking Obama, the person (and to be honest, the whole thing has a racial component to it, which I obviously disaprove of.) I've been attacking the Tea Party in most issues everytime I get a chance ever since (or at least the radical right-wing faction that has been controlling the Tea Party.)
But there are a lot of former Tea Party sympathizers (read former) who wanted a dialog oriented on fiscal conservative views (not on messianic, apocalyptic socio-religious conservative views.)
That is the type of people conservatives and liberals need to reach and talk and have dialogs and compromise. It also goes without saying that there are, as well, independent-minded left-leaning individuals that need to be reached.
So it is important not to draw generalizations and guilt-by-association due to party affiliations. A party affiliation does not mean complete obedience to a particular ideology. It can also mean trying to be a reformer, or subscribing to some basic principles, or being a dissident within that movement.
That "blow a hole in the argument" kind of thing cannot be said just based on party affiliations. You can only say that when you take careful, objective measure of a man ( Mr. Massie in question), his personal views, his record of actions and current political agenda.
I would disagree with Mr. Massie for campaigning for Rand Paul (I don't agree with the later's economic/political agenda.) But that seems one of the many items that need examination.
Also, it seems like this pro-guns/pro-tea-party associations are being blown out of proportion. The summary would make the impression Massin is a gun-totting survavilist living in a survalist underground compound, and that he is a Luddite for chosing a simpler life. Talking about character assasination if you ask me. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is just pure bullshit.
I just believe people should be able to do what they want with what is theirs barring that they don't encroach on another's rights.
That's nice. I think that too.
So, how do you propose to stop people from forcibly encroaching on others rights?
Bonus points: how do you stop them forcibly encoraching on a poor person's rights?
I don't believe that we should steal from those that choose otherwise.
It is not possible ot live without choosing otherwise. Without the government, you would be protecting "your" little patch of land until someone stronger came to take it. Even if they didn't, you wouldn't be able to leave since you would have no right to cross your neighbours land (nevermind the lack of roads for you).
Then, when your neighbour set up a lead smelter and poisoned your water supply, you would simply have to die of heavy metal poisioning as you would have no other choice.
That is simply choosing how I to allocate my resources.
What resources? They're not yours. Without the government, there are no laws, it's just a question of strongest takes all (which is of course ends up as just another form og government).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
From the article, it seems one of the main events leading to his political philosophy was
(1) starting a company
(2) making a $120k profit
(3) "forgetting" to pay taxes on that profit
(4) spending or investing the profit
(5) getting caught
Regardless of your opinions on business taxes, this doesn't look good on his resume for either business sense or honesty, or both.
There may be other reasons to like him for Congress. But not this.
I actually have read the papers. And mostly, I found people to be wholly uninformed about what is in there. The most egregious example is the discussion of republic vs democracy. Those who refer back to the Federalist Papers to support their position have absolutely no reading comprehension. Kinda like you assuming that I personally was behind the Interstate Commerce clause.
As for your dig about big government countries - they are actually quite nice. I've been there. A nice job offer, and I'll be there for good. In the meantime, have you checked out some of your small-government utopias? You might find that they have some significant draw backs that require some serious cash to overcome - like needing a private security force.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Engineers tend to look to using the government to solve things, because that's the tool at hand. When all you have is a hammer, the world is full of nails. The problem with that approach is that it grows government and centralizes power. Engineers may be the least capable of legislators, but this gentleman may be an exception.
I just want to be next to this brilliantly insightful comment.
I left USA, what more do you want?
Somalia is not my preferred region personally, I like Cyprus and Switzerland more, but feel free to tell me what's what.
You can't handle the truth.
Perhaps the engineers are just overrepresented in the captured terrorists because they are effective people. There are lots of people who wanted to harm the US, bin Laden was just capable of pulling it off while the sheep herder wasn't.
Since you're a fan of moranic loaded questions and all....
Nothing in their arguments lays out what kinds of taxes should or should not be levied. You surely must now how appallingly shallow your argument is. Besides, the Constitution was amended to permit the levying of an income tax.
Pay your goddamned taxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1. It isn't theft, no matter how many times you say it.
2. It's been known for centuries that if you just let the poor suffer without some sort of remediation you create a very angry and potentially dangerous underclass.
3. We're all in this together. You didn't make your money all on your own. There's a wider society out there that creates the environment in which it is made possible for you to accrue wealth, so pay your fucking taxes and quit calling your fucking obligations to the wider society "theft" you greedy piece of garbage.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How about the $4 billion bonus aid to Louisiana given to gain the support of Mary Landrieu?
Or how about how all student loans must come from the Bank of North Dakota, all to gain the support of Kent Conrad?
Yeah the Corn-husker Kickback was pulled out, but only because the tea party in Nebraska forced the issue and hoped by pulling it, it would save his seat. And now since it looks like he wouldn't win even with pulling it out, he's retiring... taking a bullet for the Democrat team so another democrat might get elected.
There are a couple of others... I recall there were five or so 'shady deals' pulled to get enough Democrats to vote for the bill (without reading it!!!). I'm still jaw dropped on how anybody can re-elect anybody who signed that bill. Nothing is worse than "Jam this down your throat" legislation. There was a CBS poll done right before the vote and it showed 80% had "DO NOT WANT" on it... but it was rammed through anyway.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
My wife and I have 4 degrees between us and we couldn't do our taxes. It isn't the difficulty, it's the ambiguity of the law. If you aren't an expert and don't have the time to read over the law, you can't be sure what the hell the documents are talking about.
Maybe you just guess and enjoy a good audit?
ya know, not really a media smear campaign when the mouthpiece of your org [like the present guy] say crazy things, you know like, eliminating birth control to prevent abortions. Where are all the intellectuals deriding this wingbat for representing them? Same goes for all groups, you remain silent while advocates say crazy stuff in your name, it gets pinned to you.
I worked on docs and drove semis to save up enough money to pay for most of my college, then worked while I was in school to pay for the rest. I took summer classes and loaded up on hours and finished in 2.5 years with a double Math/CS degree. Yeah, if I'd gotten sick or injured it would have been nice for a safety net. But otherwise I didn't need any help, and I resented the hell out of people getting public aid while sitting around watching tv of goofing off when not in school or work.
I'm glad to help the sick, infirm or people who are tapped out on time, but bums who want help because they can't manage to better themselves because they're too busy wasting their lives should not be getting money from society.
wow this has to be the least stimulating discussion I have ever witnessed. Let me break it down:
1. The problem with X group is they (and you by association) universally share some undesirable characteristic which makes you an enemy worthy of my poo.
No, i'd wager the main problem here is a majority of citizens, engineers included, seem to be poo flinging monkeys ripe for manipulation by their tribal leaders. We citizens have exactly the government and society we deserve. It all reflects on you. Every part of it.
.. because everybody's already beat me to it here, modding all the good one up to 5.. this may be my most favorite /. article in a while, especially with the early comments supporting the 'Engineer" idea for politicians as problem solvers.... which i had not considered before, but after reflection, *does* seem the way to go...
Moderates and Independents are a growing segments of American politics *AND* too many people vote strict party lines. These are not mutually exclusive.
For one to increase, the other has to shrink. An independent and a person who votes along party lines is an excellent example of something that is mutually exclusive.
You think you're watching a real debate when a respectable conservative argues with a liberal on TV? The conservative is going to say ooga booga free market, and the liberal is going to say disadvantaged Other, white privilege, save the whales.
Then the government is going to enact policies that take from the middle class and give to the disadvantaged Other, and also pour money into Solyndra and other green energy companies, but phrase their carbon taxes or socialization of healthcare in a way that creates an ooga booga free market.
Everybody says there is this race problem. Everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a race problem. I am talking about the final solution to the black problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Looks like someone needs to get tested for Toxoplasma Gondii.
Hardly. The Militia Movement that was screaming mad against Clinton's supposed police state tactics and New World Order - where the fuck did they go when Bush took office and started wiretapping their phones and signing shit like the Patriot Act?
It's the same story with the Teabaggers. The same people losing their shit over Obama's deficits couldn't be bothered to get out of bed when Bush doubled the national debt. That's a fact, deal with it.
Look who's lying now.
I know mediamatters and msnbc didn't cover it, so you didn't get the memo. But the Tea Party has been busy kicking Republican incumbent ass the last two elections.
Playing them off as petty partisans shows an incredible lack of even trivial knowledge or recent elections.
How are tax cheats relevant to Joe and Mary Shmoe knowing how to do their taxes? TurboTax is forty bucks....
I do my own taxes, occasionally my parents' taxes, and, for many years, the taxes of my non-profit corporation (sales, use, local, state and IRS filings other than income tax). Sometimes it's a little confusing, but my questions have always been resolved by reading the relevant statutes.
I'm not saying the tax code isn't too complex, because it is, I'm saying that "wahh, I can't figure this out!" is not a believable complaint coming from highly educated rich people.
.: Semper Absurda
You realize the US is the blue line in that chart you linked, right? Do you see how linking to that chart and then saying that current rates are higher than under Reagan, and then claiming your target has no basis in reality, might make you look foolish or even perhaps unable to read a simple chart?
Also, you are confusing what the parent stated which was ".... and 40% of our GDP is going to the government." Which is actually absolutely true. The government controls how 40% of the GDP is spent. You may not like that borrowed money is counted in yearly GDP, but this is irrelevant to the fact that it is. The parent makes a great point in that if the government did stop borrowing this much money, there would be an incredible amount of supply that no longer has any demand. Yet this demand is only propped up by offsetting deflationary pressure on the dollar (caused by the massive destruction of wealth) and foreign countries desperate for a semi-stable currency. Both of which won't last forever. So unless we somehow start growing, which is made harder by scarce resources facing stiff competition from the government which doesn't seem to care how much things should cost, we're screwed in the long term. Even Paul Krugman believes our only last ditch hope is to massively borrow a 4 trillion dollar stimulus and then cross our fingers. Although he hand waves away the fact the treasury had no idea how to effectively spend the last 1 trillion stimulus, so can hardly be expected to do better the next time around.
Horseshit revision history. Zionists in the 1940's wanted over half the land for less than a third of the population - the vast majority of whom were immigrants from Europe. It would be like the immigrant Cuban population up and declaring an independent state carved out of most of Florida. There was never a fair deal for the Palestinians to negotiate on.
Then there's the fact that Israel grabbed huge tracks of land in the 1967 war, which Israel started with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force. In response to a blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Since blockades are an act of war according to Israel, attacks in response to the blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified according to Israeli logic.
And, 22 Israelis have died from Quassam rockets. Ever. The IDF routinely kills more Palestinians in a single strike in a single offensive. You have a greater chance of dying in Israel from a civilian bus colliding with your car - not car accidents overall but ones involving buses - than in dying from a Quassam rocket. Which even the IDF admits that Hamas had stopped firing prior to Israel's latest rampage, Operation Cast Lead. Meanwhile, the current prime minister of Israel celebrates the 60th anniversary of a Zionist terrorist bombing of a hotel used as a headquarters by the British.
So, still want to try and float that false equivalency drivel?
That's pretty much blaming-the-victim bullshit.
There was a CBS poll done right before the vote and it showed 80% had "DO NOT WANT" on it... but it was rammed through anyway.
Yet, when polled on the individual aspects of the bill, those same people support it by a ~70/30 margin across the board.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I guessed as much... we might have discussed it previously.
I know. I've been to Tea Party events in NJ. There was potential in the beginning, but by early last year it was clear that religious conservatives, even in NJ, were getting too powerful in the Tea Party. One meeting I went to in Hunterdon County opened with a prayer, and the entire focus of the meeting was abortion, one guest speaker being an official at a local church.
The problem is that people have differing views of what is legitimate. And I think the Tea Party, while comprised mostly of people who are well-intentioned, misses the mark. We'll never agree on that, I guess.
This statement of yours illustrates what I think to be a big problem in the Tea Party -- blaming lack of success on laziness. Sure, it plays a defining role, but success, despite hard work, is often not possible for those who start out poor. We are no longer the land of opportunity, and in my opinion, it is some of the very policies espoused by the Tea Party that make it so.
The Tea Party has been captured by the religious right and by the extremely wealthy. It's sad.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The basis of the ideology behind individual freedom is "Flamebait"?
Really mods?
Dislike =/= Flamebait (or Troll or Offtopic or Overrated).
But then, I guess I shouldn't expect too much from those who don't value their own or others' freedom, and prefer to silence opinions, individuals, and groups they disagree with rather than debate them honestly.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
>> Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any
>> other major free nation.
> You have a bizarre notion of "voluntary"
No, you just happen to be bizarrely cursed with a conscience, a soul, and you are probably afflicted with empathy as well.
What you need to realize is
Person with $$$ == a worthy human being, worth listening to
(regardless of how they obtained that $$$)
Person without $$$ == not a citizen, let alone a fellow human being
(regardless of if they donated every cent they had -- to their worst enemy, no less)
When you subscribe to that viewpoint, everything h4rr4r and "shutdown -p now" says
makes perfect sense.
Wow, so smug! h4rr4r seemed to simply be voicing his opinion.
That's kinda like believing inherently that "one viewpoint is as good as another". Freedom is a complicated thing to entirely define, but some of the most basic moral views allow us to determine some things that most people agree are human rights - and individually it's safe to say that "all people" want those sorts of rights. A dictatorship, by its vary nature, cannot guarantee those rights, because ultimately the power to do so can only be granted by the people themselves.
Or, convince us why a single FUD-filled allusion to Egypt is enough to validate a system based primarily on a lack of freedom of the general populace.
*Might*, and it *might* only last for a single ruler's reign, after which a power hungry heir *might* prove to ultimately be evil.
But, like you said...
LegendMUD
there is no way for the English language to be specific enough that a 1 page document can provide an exact to every political problem.
True, but perhaps the English language could be specific enough provide a to every sentence.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.
No, it's easier for a developed economy to make productivity gains than it is for a subsistence economy, because by definition, the subsistence economy, after meeting the most basic needs of the population, has hardly anything left over to invest in R&D.
That is why human existence remained much the same for millennia -- a subsistence economy has little capacity to change itself -- but suddenly in the last 200 years there has been an explosion of technology and growth.
But the United States, we don't always make the best choices as to what to do with the fruits of our developed economy. Sometimes that's the fault of government (blowing money on lavish parties for GSA employees); sometimes it's the fault of individuals (blowing $150 on a ticket to watch grown men chase a ball around on a field).
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Besides, the Constitution was amended to permit the levying of an income tax.
Which was exactly my point! The constitution was amended during the 20th century, long after the founders were dead and gone.
The founding fathers never expressed an opinion about whether or not the USA should be engaged in space flight. Same reason, they were dead before we considered it.
Pay your goddamned taxes.
Everyone should pay every penny that they legally owe and not one penny more.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
just what the world was waiting for
oooo Do ya love Palin and Bachmann????
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Specifically saying "We think this group of people worked too hard and as a result earn more than $X, so we're going to punish them and take their money and give it to this other person who made bad life choices instead" is a totally different issue.
if that was what was happening that would be one thing.
the 1% are mostly parasitic scumbags who don't actually labor and do not take personal risk, instead they siphon billions out of the system by risking the money of others and exploiting the labor of others less cunning than themselves.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
A scientist sees the world and tries to understand how it currently works. An engineer sees the world and questions how he can make it work the way he thinks it should. That fundamental difference is critically important. They may be effective at "fixing" things, but that's only when their original assumptions were correct to begin with. Those assumptions don't necessarily go through ANY form of scientific rigor, and are just as prone to error as any other initial mindset.
The level of Hate Speech on this forum makes me wonder if the posters are actually KKK members in disguise.
Democrats would never be so rude and insulting.
I should point out that KKK members were traditionally mainly Democrats but you'll probably just call me a racist for doing so.
Really brilliant people are used to being right when everyone else around them is wrong. They're hard to argue out of a wrong position, and when you get enough of them together that they can sort themselves into loony birds of a feather even reality can't make a dent in their opinions. And brilliance in one area doesn't translate into competence in every area. There are people I'd trust to design an aircraft I had to fly in or a sub I had to dive in, but that I wouldn't trust managing by checking account.
My coworker, an aero engineer, was mayor of his city for decades. One time I asked him how intelligent politicians typically are. He felt the norm was probably around a 100-ish IQ but the standard deviation was extremely high.
Unintellgent politicians can do extremely well with a good team supporting them. They can offer charisma, guts, know how to deal, and know when to listen and when to talk. The intellectual piece can be covered by their team, and they can serve as the public face and negotiator. And while the best ideas in the world won't overthrow a sufficiently stubborn opponent, charisma or a bribe might make short work of him.
Thinking from another angle, a clever political team can be extremely effective at getting results by rallying behind a convincing, argumentative, simpleton (puppet) lawyer who feels the team's ideas are worth arguing tooth and nail. He won't back down because he can't - he doesn't know where to go on his own, and that's part of the power in that political team structure.