"Liberal" congresswoman tells Tea Party to "go straight to hell"

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by rphud

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent and has way too much influence during the last year or so. Especially when one considers how delusional they are. Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country. The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent

THE?? minority? There's only one minority? Aren't all parties coalitions of minorities? There may be a "majority" of opinion on a given topic on which minorities can coalesce, but lockstep on all issues doesn't exist.

and has way too much influence during the last year or so.

Is "too much influence" that influence that disturbs yuor particular minority? How does a minority apply that influence--by convincing a majority to vote for its candidate or policy?

Especially when one considers how delusional they are.

Are "they" delusional because they disagree with you? Do explain this delusion, otherwise you're just name-calling.

Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country.

Ah . . . so THE majority is the middle of both parties. The middle of both parties agree with each other? On some particular policies, perhaps, but those middles are too expansive and various to see any massive agreement on what is "sane" or what is "destroying the country." "Idiots . . .sanity" more unsubstantiated name-calling.

The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

It all depends...candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

I think what concerns moderate voters right now is that the GOP field is playing so hard to the right would a Republican President from this group be able to lead from the middle? Huntsman certainly would, Romney probably would but the rest I'm not so sure about.

By my reckoning the "majority" wants to see more effective and responsible government, but they don't want a disruptive and radical change in vector...they want pragmatic action to reduce spending and the deficit, but not to destroy the EPA or Medicare for ideological purposes.

Reagan and Clinton were both good examples of having consistent beliefs to guide their actions, but a pragmatic approach to actually employ them. I think this made them more effective leaders.

Don't see much of this from the GOP right now.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=detbuch] So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

Originally Posted by spence

It all depends... this hit my funny bone--insanity "all depends" candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

Nice shift away from Zimmy's unsubstantiated name-calling to what it actually depends on to verify voter insanity.

I think what concerns moderate voters right now is that the GOP field is playing so hard to the right would a Republican President from this group be able to lead from the middle? Huntsman certainly would, Romney probably would but the rest I'm not so sure about.

I think what concerns "moderate" voters even more is the current hard to the left administration. See your above three gears as to how a Republican President from this group would be able to lead from the middle. If your so certain that candidates gear for the primary, shift into another gear to win the general election, and shift into the real gear to govern, why would you not be "so sure about" them governing from the middle?

By my reckoning the "majority" wants to see more effective and responsible government, but they don't want a disruptive and radical change in vector...they want pragmatic action to reduce spending and the deficit, but not to destroy the EPA or Medicare for ideological purposes.

If this "majority" wants "to see more effective and responsible government" it might very well want a "disruptive and radical change in vector" away from the vector that has been gradually sliding away from our Constitutional foundation and is the vector that has created the unsustainable debt and constant deficit spending. And a change in vector toward our foundation would be the most "pragmatic action" to reduce spending and the deficit. And elimination of most of the unconstitutional regulatory agencies would be a factor in such reductions.

Reagan and Clinton were both good examples of having consistent beliefs to guide their actions, but a pragmatic approach to actually employ them. I think this made them more effective leaders.

Don't see much of this from the GOP right now.

-spence

Again, see your three gears.

[scottw]

it's apparently three gears but a one way street

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

this hit my funny bone--insanity "all depends"

Doesn't it?

Nice shift away from Zimmy's unsubstantiated name-calling to what it actually depends on to verify voter insanity.

I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.

I think what concerns "moderate" voters even more is the current hard to the left administration.

I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".

He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation. Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years. He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.

So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now

See your above three gears as to how a Republican President from this group would be able to lead from the middle. If your so certain that candidates gear for the primary, shift into another gear to win the general election, and shift into the real gear to govern, why would you not be "so sure about" them governing from the middle?

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

If this "majority" wants "to see more effective and responsible government" it might very well want a "disruptive and radical change in vector" away from the vector that has been gradually sliding away from our Constitutional foundation and is the vector that has created the unsustainable debt and constant deficit spending. And a change in vector toward our foundation would be the most "pragmatic action" to reduce spending and the deficit. And elimination of most of the unconstitutional regulatory agencies would be a factor in such reductions.

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

-spence

yup...that and unemploment rate over 9%, a stagnant economy, record debt, a heaping pile of failed promises and bankrupt plans and an approval rating in the 30's.... Barry is really sitting pretty Republicans shouldn't really even bother this time around....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

yup...that and unemploment rate over 9%, a stagnant economy, record debt, a heaping pile of failed promises and bankrupt plans and an approval rating in the 30's.... Barry is really sitting pretty Republicans shouldn't really even bother this time around....

Obama has a tough row to hoe, but then again so did Bush in 2004.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=detbuch] this hit my funnybone--insanity "all depends"

Originally Posted by spence

Doesn't it?

To a relativist everything depends on point of view. But if insanity is to be a meaningful, useful description to a diverse society, it must describe an agreed upon, verifiable condition.


I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.

So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.

I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".

He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation.

What would hard to the left on foreign policy be? What does hard to the left in immigration mean? Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left? Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left? Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left? Would spreading the wealth be hard left? Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?

Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years.

Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.

He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.

Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals. Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.

So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now

Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence

The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are. We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that. A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=detbuch;884816]

Originally Posted by detbuch

this hit my funnybone--insanity "all depends"

Posted by spence- That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.



Spence's view's make perfect sense as the views of someone from the "hard left".....big expansive central government, little regard for our Constitution, knows what's best for "the people" even if they resist....very troubling

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.

There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity

What would hard to the left on foreign policy be?

Pacifism.

What does hard to the left in immigration mean?

Amnesty.

Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left?

Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.

Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left?

You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left?

This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

Would spreading the wealth be hard left?

Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?

I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.

The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals.

Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above

Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.

I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?

I don't think there are that many "real liberals" out there. Certainly less than 20% of the population. Conservatives on the other hand get to enjoy much larger enrollment, which hides the reality that there are many sub-brands that at times really don't agree on much.

What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?

As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are.

Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals"

We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that.

I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;884734

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence[/QUOTE]

If "Most people" just want clean air and affordable health care, what is the risk and uncertainty of shifting the responsibility back to the States WHERE IT CONSTITUTIONALLY BELONGS? Don't "Most people" live in those states? Do you not trust those "Most people" to decide in ways that suit them rather than being dictated to by a far off clique ruled by a slight majority of representatives who have different interests? Do you really believe it is better to force a "one size fits all" approach to a population of supposedly free and diverse people?

And if most people "just want clean air", shouldn't they look to themselves to stop polluting, rather than looking to nanny to tell them to stop, and how to stop? Is nanny really that wise and all knowing? Shouldn't "Most people" know more about their problem and how to solve it than a distant nanny? If most people want legislation that prevents a recalcitrant few from polluting, shouldn't they have the power to locally decide rather than distant nanny telling them?

And if "Most people" want affordable health care, shouldn't they be doing those things that promote good health? I take little stock in someone who wants affordable health care then eats crap, wastes away before a TV, remains ignorant of anything beyond his nose, including his responsibility in a free society to provide the means to afford his "health care." To have nanny trash our rights and responsibilities to provide for such oafs is benevolent dictatorship, not Constitutional governance. And if there is a small minority that must be cared for, it should not distort the rights of the rest of us, and, again, should be left Constitutionally to the States and their localities, to decide, in their various self governing ways.

Let "Most people" come as close to self-government as the Constitution provides, rather than being governed by a small clique that distorts that Constitution to further their power. The true "center" of our country is the Constitution. It is our core, our foundation, through which we are governed, that gives us the ultimate power of self-governance, which prevents a despotic center from denying us that power. If "Most people" don't know that, and if they prefer Nanny to adulthood and self-realization, if they prefer being told and ordered to making self-governing local decisions, than the Republic is lost, and the full-fledged era of depending on the benevolence and whims of Central power is here.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Let "Most people" come as close to self-government as the Constitution provides, rather than being governed by a small clique that distorts that Constitution to further their power. The true "center" of our country is the Constitution. It is our core, our foundation, through which we are governed, that gives us the ultimate power of self-governance, which prevents a despotic center from denying us that power. If "Most people" don't know that, and if they prefer Nanny to adulthood and self-realization, if they prefer being told and ordered to making self-governing local decisions, than the Republic is lost, and the full-fledged era of depending on the benevolence and whims of Central power is here.

Well put.
I believe that "Most People" are not ninnies
wanting to be taken care of by nannies.
Except for the east and west coast elites.