Not to try and split hairs about this.... Ok.. I am...
You cannot define the "tea party" by anything but the OFFICAL platform of the organization. It may be filled with people who advocate for open carry rights (and it is) but that does NOT mean that the Tea Party is involved with such efforts.
It would be like equating the democratic party with opposition to the civil rights act, after all Strom Thurmond (and others) strongly opposed the passage of these laws. Such conclusions would NOT be fair, though members of the party still have the same position today. (Yes, they do, trust me, I know some...)
So, be fair here and recognize that it's not the "Tea Party" you are thinking about for some of this stuff you (and others) falsely say is part of the group. Guilt by association is an invalid approach, just like it would be unfair to judge Obama by what his friends (past and present) may have said and done.
Calling the Tea Party into account for perceived logical failings of individuals who may support the Tea Party is a failure of logic born of simple intellectual laziness at best or politically biased punditry (aka lying) at worse. You have to judge by the official platform of the group, by their official contacts, and not by what somebody wants to say they stand for.
So, where you frown on people who dis Obama for things he's not done or voiced support for directly or though his representatives, you must be fair and use the same standards for those who would dis the Tea Party. Both sides have their dishonest politically biased brokers, both sides have their nutcases who fall for the rhetoric of the former. The trick is to recognize who's who and try to stay out of both groups...
And he was one at the time, a Republican who was governor of a largely democratic state...
But all this brew-ha-ha overlooks the fact that what Romney signed was a STATE law, which IMHO is the correct venue for laws like this. The Federal government has little business being involved in such things constitutionally, unless you use a pretty contrived interpretation of the commerce clause...
So can we dispense with this "it was a republican idea" canard. It wasn't and republicans oppose it almost universally now as they did then.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it.... But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.
And yet when a Republican was in office, and was vastly expanding the government for a brand new prescription drug program, they had no problem with it? They only start complaining when the Black Democrat takes office? So no, whatever their real problem is, it clearly isn't about government expansion. It has something to do with the current occupant of the White House.
STOP RIGHT THERE...
You didn't read my post eh? The Tea Party opposed Bush's expansion of government, in fact it was largely about opposing the abuses of the Republican party of it's day. Come on, it was officially started in 2007, before Obama was the democratic nominee in 2008 obsessively to support Ran (or was it Ron?) Paul in their attempt to get the nomination from the Republican party...
You do remember the "split republican party" story line of the past right? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WAS ABOUT? Hint: The Tea Party was pushing the Republican party to the right by organizing the Ultra-right and the "establishment" was having nothing of it...
So the Tea Party is NOT the Republican Party persay, but a collation of people who are generally Republicans who are dissatisfied with large government and high taxes.
Where I understand the frustration with Obama and his policies, there ARE some who push a bit too far on how to resolve the differences of opinion. I generally don't entertain such nonsense...
Problem though, some of the charges you bring up are factually true... For instance, his agenda is decidedly socialist leaning and the teachings of his mentors are decidedly un-American and Obama hasn't really distanced himself from these people. Some tend to make this kind of thing into more than it really is, but the media pundits also tend to sensationalize the issues raised because it brings in viewers and sells advertising.
However, the fact here is the Tea Party officially doesn't give voice to the things you object too, even if *some* of it's members do. You should be careful to not get confused by the media reporting that blurs the distinction between what the Tea Party officially is and what some person who may be a member says about something which is not a Tea Party position.
As for the criticisms against Obama, I agree that the racist part is rare.
Yet, it comes up way to often as a critique of those who oppose Obama on ideological grounds, such as the Tea Party. Really it's a political trick to "play the race card" as Bill Clinton calls it, to attempt to control the debate. How does one prove the racist claim is in fact not true? It's really an Ad Hominem for about 99.99% of the times it is used. Problem is people fall for the argument and we get this popular belief that the Tea Party is racist. It's not, it's just political spin to say so.
They're either idiots, or racist idiots. Take your pick.
Your logic fails you sir, as do you assumptions. I'll assume you haven't ever attended a Tea Party rally and just say, from THIS eyewitness of multiple rallies, your assumptions are simply not true.
Your argument amounts to a classic Ad Hominem and thus fails on logical grounds.
Bad information based on assumptions + faulty logic = loosing argument
Ouch....Made a bad assumption there. I confused "super majority" and 2/3rds required to override a veto, one is by Senate Rules the other by the US Constitution... Very sorry...
As a bit of history, Cloture started out as 2/3rds, but in 1974 this was changed to 3/5ths because almost no bill was getting 2/3rds needed to proceed, but after 1974 the wicket was lowered to 3/5ths.
You can only filibuster a bill that has jumped enough of the procedural wickets to be debated on the floor. As the Senate rules now stand, a number of these wickets involve super majority votes. So to block a bill, you only need to pick one of these choke points and kill it there. The filibuster is only a last ditch effort to delay a bill by a vocal minority who can manage to get the floor during a debate on a bill. Once a senator starts talking during a debate, the floor is his for as long as he keeps talking. This is really only a way to delay a bill once the final cloture vote has been taken which starts the stop watch on how much longer debate can take. A filibuster is when a Senator takes the floor before the time is up, and uses the fact that he cannot be interrupted by rule to delay the final vote.
formation of the tea party were before he had even suggested doing anything.
That much is true. The Tea Party was actually a reaction to the huge bailout reaction to the subprime mess that was suggested PRIOR to Obama taking office. A fair observer would note that while Obama was president-elect, he WASN'T yet president.
There are many valid objections to Obama but they are not from the tea party brigade.
That I disagree with. The Tea Party has issues with Obama's policy which are valid and have nothing to do with Obama's race, yet they get cast as racist by the political commentators in the media, and the media reports this as news. Where I'm sure there are racists who are Tea Party members (just like there are racists who are democrats) this is NOT the official policy nor the basis of the Tea Party's existence. I've not seen or heard any evidence of racism at any of the Tea Party rallies I've attended either from the speakers or attendees, but I'm a middle aged white guy and I obviously don't go to every Tea Party meeting.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. Fundamentally, Obama wants exactly the opposite, a larger more powerful government that costs more and has to tax more to pay for itself. But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.
You *do* realize that the oil that would be flowing though the XL Pipe literally goes solid at room temperature? Environmental risk exists, but it's not like this stuff is going to get too far away from a leak before cooling.
Harry Reid had been acting as a firewall for the past 6 years keeping anything that could possibly embarrass Obama from reaching Obama's desk.
He still is.
Remember that it takes multiple supermajority votes to get a bill though the Senate. Reid controls enough votes (assuming his party's Senators stick together) to stop any bill he wants from making it though the process. Of course these "Rules" can be changed with a majority vote, but so far this idea hasn't been advanced by the majority, even though the last party in control of the Senate suspended parts of the rules for some nominations.
So minority leader Reid is blocking just about any bill he chooses. Some will slip though, but only if the majority can peal enough votes from Reid so he cannot obstruct it's progress. But it doesn't really matter, Obama would still have his veto unless you can get a veto proof final vote.
A bill requires multiple 2/3rds Senate votes to make it to the president. If at any point the bill doesn't get 2/3rds of the vote, it won't advance. I believe it's three votes... 1. To agree to accept the bill. 2. To bring it to the floor for debate and 3. to get cloture (cut off debate). After that, the majority rules. But before cloture, if you have 34 senators who vote to prevent the bill from proceeding, it stops... Sad to say, the new party of "no" (the democrats) still have enough votes to stop any bill they want in the Senate.
I wonder how many US born citizens understand this? Given how readily they blame congress for not doing anything, I'm guessing it's very few.
Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?
It's been the Senate under democrat control that's been blocking just about everything of any political consequence from reaching his desk. Even now, with the cloture 2/3'rds cloture rule, the democrats are generally preventing debate on anything they don't want to see on Obama's desk. The XL pipeline happened to garner enough support to get though the series of 4 (I think) of the 66% required votes to get it passed though the Senate.
Get a warrant and demand the keys. Or brute force it. Same as a locked box. I know the legal system is such a pain in the ass for making you do your God damned jobs the proper way.
But it's for the children you know.... We just have to get access to save them... (/sarcasm)
They're quick to tell us how this is going to make us more secure, but they've utterly failed to demonstrate how existing laws are inadequate.
And we stumbled onto a VERY important point. Legislators are often guilty of passing a new law because they want to be seen as "doing something" about a problem. FEW of them actually ask the question "So what laws do we have NOW that address this and do we need to modify them?" Even fewer would actually understand the answer.
This is about politics, about Public Relations and how I can burnish my image and tarnish my opponent. So if I can pass a law and claim to have addressed the issue, I have advanced MYSELF. Who cares if it's the right thing to do or if making a minor tweak to existing law or budgets would be a better, faster, cheaper fix? Oh no, it's about appearances, not effectiveness..
Of course they do... The whole point of having this set to the same thing on routers was that an ISP was providing their customers equipment (the router) and wanted to be able to manage the equipment for the customer so they arranged for access with the router manufacturer. The problem was the manufacturer then sold hardware with the same firmware image to general customers and thus exposed the key and security hole to a much larger audience....
Slashdot Mirror
Not to try and split hairs about this.... Ok.. I am...
You cannot define the "tea party" by anything but the OFFICAL platform of the organization. It may be filled with people who advocate for open carry rights (and it is) but that does NOT mean that the Tea Party is involved with such efforts.
It would be like equating the democratic party with opposition to the civil rights act, after all Strom Thurmond (and others) strongly opposed the passage of these laws. Such conclusions would NOT be fair, though members of the party still have the same position today. (Yes, they do, trust me, I know some...)
So, be fair here and recognize that it's not the "Tea Party" you are thinking about for some of this stuff you (and others) falsely say is part of the group. Guilt by association is an invalid approach, just like it would be unfair to judge Obama by what his friends (past and present) may have said and done.
Calling the Tea Party into account for perceived logical failings of individuals who may support the Tea Party is a failure of logic born of simple intellectual laziness at best or politically biased punditry (aka lying) at worse. You have to judge by the official platform of the group, by their official contacts, and not by what somebody wants to say they stand for.
So, where you frown on people who dis Obama for things he's not done or voiced support for directly or though his representatives, you must be fair and use the same standards for those who would dis the Tea Party. Both sides have their dishonest politically biased brokers, both sides have their nutcases who fall for the rhetoric of the former. The trick is to recognize who's who and try to stay out of both groups...
And he was one at the time, a Republican who was governor of a largely democratic state...
But all this brew-ha-ha overlooks the fact that what Romney signed was a STATE law, which IMHO is the correct venue for laws like this. The Federal government has little business being involved in such things constitutionally, unless you use a pretty contrived interpretation of the commerce clause...
So can we dispense with this "it was a republican idea" canard. It wasn't and republicans oppose it almost universally now as they did then.
So voodoo produces 1200 pages of legalize that does nothing the title of the document suggests it might? (need I say "Affordable Care")
It must be time to ban the first religion in the United States them....
/sarcasim
And you think real life will be better than the dream? I'm very sad for you...
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. ... But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.
And yet when a Republican was in office, and was vastly expanding the government for a brand new prescription drug program, they had no problem with it? They only start complaining when the Black Democrat takes office? So no, whatever their real problem is, it clearly isn't about government expansion. It has something to do with the current occupant of the White House.
STOP RIGHT THERE...
You didn't read my post eh? The Tea Party opposed Bush's expansion of government, in fact it was largely about opposing the abuses of the Republican party of it's day. Come on, it was officially started in 2007, before Obama was the democratic nominee in 2008 obsessively to support Ran (or was it Ron?) Paul in their attempt to get the nomination from the Republican party...
You do remember the "split republican party" story line of the past right? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WAS ABOUT? Hint: The Tea Party was pushing the Republican party to the right by organizing the Ultra-right and the "establishment" was having nothing of it...
So the Tea Party is NOT the Republican Party persay, but a collation of people who are generally Republicans who are dissatisfied with large government and high taxes.
Well.... There are nuts scattered all around...
Where I understand the frustration with Obama and his policies, there ARE some who push a bit too far on how to resolve the differences of opinion. I generally don't entertain such nonsense...
Problem though, some of the charges you bring up are factually true... For instance, his agenda is decidedly socialist leaning and the teachings of his mentors are decidedly un-American and Obama hasn't really distanced himself from these people. Some tend to make this kind of thing into more than it really is, but the media pundits also tend to sensationalize the issues raised because it brings in viewers and sells advertising.
However, the fact here is the Tea Party officially doesn't give voice to the things you object too, even if *some* of it's members do. You should be careful to not get confused by the media reporting that blurs the distinction between what the Tea Party officially is and what some person who may be a member says about something which is not a Tea Party position.
As for the criticisms against Obama, I agree that the racist part is rare.
Yet, it comes up way to often as a critique of those who oppose Obama on ideological grounds, such as the Tea Party. Really it's a political trick to "play the race card" as Bill Clinton calls it, to attempt to control the debate. How does one prove the racist claim is in fact not true? It's really an Ad Hominem for about 99.99% of the times it is used. Problem is people fall for the argument and we get this popular belief that the Tea Party is racist. It's not, it's just political spin to say so.
They're either idiots, or racist idiots. Take your pick.
Your logic fails you sir, as do you assumptions. I'll assume you haven't ever attended a Tea Party rally and just say, from THIS eyewitness of multiple rallies, your assumptions are simply not true.
Your argument amounts to a classic Ad Hominem and thus fails on logical grounds.
Bad information based on assumptions + faulty logic = loosing argument
You didn't here what I said then. Many claim the Tea Party STARTED officially on December 16, 2007 which was prior to the 2008 election season.
So the Tea Party pre-existed Obama the democratic candidate for president by nearly half a year.
Ouch....Made a bad assumption there. I confused "super majority" and 2/3rds required to override a veto, one is by Senate Rules the other by the US Constitution... Very sorry...
As a bit of history, Cloture started out as 2/3rds, but in 1974 this was changed to 3/5ths because almost no bill was getting 2/3rds needed to proceed, but after 1974 the wicket was lowered to 3/5ths.
You can only filibuster a bill that has jumped enough of the procedural wickets to be debated on the floor. As the Senate rules now stand, a number of these wickets involve super majority votes. So to block a bill, you only need to pick one of these choke points and kill it there. The filibuster is only a last ditch effort to delay a bill by a vocal minority who can manage to get the floor during a debate on a bill. Once a senator starts talking during a debate, the floor is his for as long as he keeps talking. This is really only a way to delay a bill once the final cloture vote has been taken which starts the stop watch on how much longer debate can take. A filibuster is when a Senator takes the floor before the time is up, and uses the fact that he cannot be interrupted by rule to delay the final vote.
Not to mention the Chicago River and how it connects eventually to the Mississippi River... Chicago is ANYTHING but land locked....
I can't tell if you're joking, or if you've actually gone full-retard. Never go full-retard.
Unless you are driving a train and need to stop....
formation of the tea party were before he had even suggested doing anything.
That much is true. The Tea Party was actually a reaction to the huge bailout reaction to the subprime mess that was suggested PRIOR to Obama taking office. A fair observer would note that while Obama was president-elect, he WASN'T yet president.
There are many valid objections to Obama but they are not from the tea party brigade.
That I disagree with. The Tea Party has issues with Obama's policy which are valid and have nothing to do with Obama's race, yet they get cast as racist by the political commentators in the media, and the media reports this as news. Where I'm sure there are racists who are Tea Party members (just like there are racists who are democrats) this is NOT the official policy nor the basis of the Tea Party's existence. I've not seen or heard any evidence of racism at any of the Tea Party rallies I've attended either from the speakers or attendees, but I'm a middle aged white guy and I obviously don't go to every Tea Party meeting.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. Fundamentally, Obama wants exactly the opposite, a larger more powerful government that costs more and has to tax more to pay for itself. But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.
You *do* realize that the oil that would be flowing though the XL Pipe literally goes solid at room temperature? Environmental risk exists, but it's not like this stuff is going to get too far away from a leak before cooling.
Harry Reid had been acting as a firewall for the past 6 years keeping anything that could possibly embarrass Obama from reaching Obama's desk.
He still is.
Remember that it takes multiple supermajority votes to get a bill though the Senate. Reid controls enough votes (assuming his party's Senators stick together) to stop any bill he wants from making it though the process. Of course these "Rules" can be changed with a majority vote, but so far this idea hasn't been advanced by the majority, even though the last party in control of the Senate suspended parts of the rules for some nominations.
So minority leader Reid is blocking just about any bill he chooses. Some will slip though, but only if the majority can peal enough votes from Reid so he cannot obstruct it's progress. But it doesn't really matter, Obama would still have his veto unless you can get a veto proof final vote.
A bill requires multiple 2/3rds Senate votes to make it to the president. If at any point the bill doesn't get 2/3rds of the vote, it won't advance. I believe it's three votes... 1. To agree to accept the bill. 2. To bring it to the floor for debate and 3. to get cloture (cut off debate). After that, the majority rules. But before cloture, if you have 34 senators who vote to prevent the bill from proceeding, it stops... Sad to say, the new party of "no" (the democrats) still have enough votes to stop any bill they want in the Senate.
I wonder how many US born citizens understand this? Given how readily they blame congress for not doing anything, I'm guessing it's very few.
Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?
It's been the Senate under democrat control that's been blocking just about everything of any political consequence from reaching his desk. Even now, with the cloture 2/3'rds cloture rule, the democrats are generally preventing debate on anything they don't want to see on Obama's desk. The XL pipeline happened to garner enough support to get though the series of 4 (I think) of the 66% required votes to get it passed though the Senate.
Well put.. But we all know that Obama is beholden to the radical environmentalists, so it comes as no surprise he'd veto something like this.
Get a warrant and demand the keys. Or brute force it. Same as a locked box. I know the legal system is such a pain in the ass for making you do your God damned jobs the proper way.
But it's for the children you know.... We just have to get access to save them... (/sarcasm)
When, in this life or the next?
IF you are discussing here and now.... Historically you've needed to be protected from governments more often than anything else.
They're quick to tell us how this is going to make us more secure, but they've utterly failed to demonstrate how existing laws are inadequate.
And we stumbled onto a VERY important point. Legislators are often guilty of passing a new law because they want to be seen as "doing something" about a problem. FEW of them actually ask the question "So what laws do we have NOW that address this and do we need to modify them?" Even fewer would actually understand the answer.
This is about politics, about Public Relations and how I can burnish my image and tarnish my opponent. So if I can pass a law and claim to have addressed the issue, I have advanced MYSELF. Who cares if it's the right thing to do or if making a minor tweak to existing law or budgets would be a better, faster, cheaper fix? Oh no, it's about appearances, not effectiveness..
Touché` my friend...
Of course they do... The whole point of having this set to the same thing on routers was that an ISP was providing their customers equipment (the router) and wanted to be able to manage the equipment for the customer so they arranged for access with the router manufacturer. The problem was the manufacturer then sold hardware with the same firmware image to general customers and thus exposed the key and security hole to a much larger audience....
Honestly, after the Carna botnet, does anyone think the internet isn't a raging sea of completely compromised devices?
It's the World Wide Web and the Wild Wild West all at the same time.