Strawman. Tea Partiers don't have to be racist - they just have to believe that government shouldn't "interfere" with the violent extremists. The end result is the same.
Because it's not truly limited government. You (maybe not YOU, but the general tea partier) want to limit government's regulation of business, yet want to INCREASE government's ability to legislate personal choice. If it were the other way around I'd be right there with you - limit government's influence on personal freedoms, but ramp up their (the PEOPLE'S) ability to ensure that business is conducted in an ethical and fair manner. Sadly, there's no legitimate political movement headed in that direction. The "Limited Government/Personal Responsibility" mumbo jumbo is also EXTREMELY shortsighted and would blow up in everyone's faces within a generation. Tell me, where does personal responsibility fit in as middle-class jobs are increasingly phased out in favor of automation? Over the past 50 years we've made up bullshit jobs to cover up for all the jobs that have disappeared. But with ever-increasing technological advancements we're going to get to the point where the vast majority of people will (a) not need to work, and (b) won't be able to work because there will be no need for it. So, as we travel down this path towards fewer and fewer jobs, but more and more people, how does limited government and personal responsibility work for the vast majority of the population? The beneficent corporations that will have prospered 1000-fold more than they currently are will see that we're taken care of?
Hi Blue! I haven't talked with you in some time. Your last sentence is a little muddled to me. Am I to gather you think a prosperous company is responsible for taking care of the general population? Just because they are run by people adroit enough to turn a profit? How did you come to that sort of thinking? I guess I think it is a fair goal to want to join the ranks of folks that are skilled enough to run an enterprise that produces a profit. It never occurs to me that we should burden them with responsibilities to others outside their enterprise. But, perhaps you will enlighten me. Oh! BTW I spent many years working to trim payroll for quite a number of companies. It often meant the difference of staying in business or not. Heck I just finished a job with a small company in SW Washington where my work has resulted in the reduction of seven full time employees. The results are not yet known whether that will be enough to keep the company profitable. We may have to have another go at it, nothing the Government is doing is helping with the issue. I could go on about the opposite view of what the government is doing to this same company, but I won't.
George Zimmerman! The poor dude had a bad day. That kid that went to do Whoop ass on him was really bad. A whole lot of people let that kid down and I really don't know why that happens. What should have happened is someone, probably Trayvon's dad should have made it known to the Neighborhood watch that Travon lived there. Second, Dad should have taught the lad that you do not do Whoop ass on the neighborhood watch, the watch is there to help the community. It works pretty much that way with the neighborhood watch we have here where I live I helped set that up about 10 years ago. It really has worked terrific in knocking off burglaries. You see, George and Trayvon both had to pay the price for others not performing their responsibilities.
I was being sarcastic with that last sentence. Of course the corporations aren't going to come to the aid of the people. Which is why government (not our current incarnation of government - but an actual government OF the people and FOR the people) is now necessary, and will become even more necessary as we progress into the future. You're looking in the rear view mirror with your anecdotes of cost-cutting. We need to be looking ahead, at the decades in front of us where more and more jobs will be (and should be) automated. How does "personal responsibility" fit into a society where workers are no longer necessary? How does one fend for one's self/family when the resources are controlled by the corporations? We are on the cusp of an economic market where humans will not be needed except as consumers. Fast-food workers, taxi drivers, garbage collectors, accountants, even doctors will become largely obsolete in the next 100 years. Factory workers have been obsolete for decades, and are all but extinct. The number of necessary jobs is shrinking and the population is growing. We need to begin laying groundwork for a future where work is something we CHOOSE to do, not something we HAVE to do.
And what do we do when we choose not to work or create or produce? What? Geez! Dang this is terrible, all I can come up with is standing in line wait for someone or thing to hand out a ration. Geez! That won't do. I bet I can come up with some thing I can make to sell to someone that really wants it. That will beats the waiting line.
I'm already looking at property in that area, and one of the things holding me back (that it's in California) would be taken away. I'm intrigued. I highly doubt it would happen. But after thinking about it...what do CA and OR lose, really? Not a lot of taxpaying citizens (comparatively) in those areas. Not a ton of business. Intriguing.
The Jefferson Public Radio (PBS) covers this area and have been keeping this old time initiative on the burner for years now. This seems to be all there is to it. However I think it's a fine idea, but I am not putting any effort in the project.
Due to the one way thinking of the people in this state. "Blue, Blue, Blue, I HAVE TO HAVE BLUE". What kind of check and balances is taking place right now? The state is already and clearly out of control.
I agree with you both. As long as we have a situation 'them' versus 'us' this country will continue to struggle.
Aimed at Nate really. sorry for the misfire onelife. What the heck are you talking about, "the first place" There have been two opposing faction since the beginning, the revolutionist verses the Loyalist, then the Hamiltonian Federalist (Monarchist) versus the Jeffersonian. Republicans. We are not today but a stone throw away from the same ideological battle that raged 225 years ago. The parties have taken new names and swapped places as they passed through the helix of time, but the same struggle. Actually acceptance of being a Constitutional Republic with the government limited by the Constitution is the main issue now as it was then. Nate's comment pretty much identifies him as a Hamiltonian Federalist longing for the benevolent leader with nearly Monarchical control of a strong federal government.
Slightly off topic, but I was surprised that the following is Snopes-confirmed: (EDIT: By the 100,000 shares on facebook, maybe this isn't new)
Brian, This was news here in Texas a bit ago. People applauding OK for it. Amazing people get up in arms about arresting criminals. they are called illegal immigrants for a reason. Also amazing people get mad when things in America are only written in English. If you want to come here it's simple. Learn the language, get a green card, and welcome to the Country. if you choose not to do those things then stay in your own fucking country
