quote:

The so-called Tea Partiers may portray themselves as heirs to the American Revolutionaries, but they are actually the descendants of those who lost the debate of 1788--in particular, the strain of constititutional opponents who violently resisted federal authority until Washington took to the battlefield against them. American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

Despite their "We the People" T-shirts, the visceral drivers of this fragmented formation are not conservatives striving to defend the Bill of Rights and strictly define constitutional language. They are anti-federalists, opposed to any meaningful central government, hostile to the principles of America's founders, and determined to re-create the loose association of local authorities that fell apart within a few years of its establishment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In a letter to the New Yorker (5-31-10), David B. Kanin, adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins, offers an interesting (to me, at least) perspective on Tea Partiers vis-a-vis the American founders.

quote:

The so-called Tea Partiers may portray themselves as heirs to the American Revolutionaries, but they are actually the descendants of those who lost the debate of 1788--in particular, the strain of constititutional opponents who violently resisted federal authority until Washington took to the battlefield against them. American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

Despite their "We the People" T-shirts, the visceral drivers of this fragmented formation are not conservatives striving to defend the Bill of Rights and strictly define constitutional language. They are anti-federalists, opposed to any meaningful central government, hostile to the principles of America's founders, and determined to re-create the loose association of local authorities that fell apart within a few years of its establishment.

Thoughts? Is Kanin on to something? Overstating his case? Who are the true heirs to America's founders?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In a letter to the New Yorker (5-31-10), David B. Kanin, adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins, offers an interesting (to me, at least) perspective on Tea Partiers vis-a-vis the American founders.

quote:

The so-called Tea Partiers may portray themselves as heirs to the American Revolutionaries, but they are actually the descendants of those who lost the debate of 1788--in particular, the strain of constititutional opponents who violently resisted federal authority until Washington took to the battlefield against them. American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

Despite their "We the People" T-shirts, the visceral drivers of this fragmented formation are not conservatives striving to defend the Bill of Rights and strictly define constitutional language. They are anti-federalists, opposed to any meaningful central government, hostile to the principles of America's founders, and determined to re-create the loose association of local authorities that fell apart within a few years of its establishment.

Thoughts? Is Kanin on to something? Overstating his case? Who are the true heirs to America's founders?

Who cares about their petigree?
I'm just glad they're around to shake up things. The federal govt is too big and spends money that we don't have and more importantly doesn't *listen* to The People! It is in short, out of control.
I hope the Voters shake the federal govt to it's very foundations in November!

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In a letter to the New Yorker (5-31-10), David B. Kanin, adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins, offers an interesting (to me, at least) perspective on Tea Partiers vis-a-vis the American founders.

quote:

The so-called Tea Partiers may portray themselves as heirs to the American Revolutionaries, but they are actually the descendants of those who lost the debate of 1788--in particular, the strain of constititutional opponents who violently resisted federal authority until Washington took to the battlefield against them. American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

Despite their "We the People" T-shirts, the visceral drivers of this fragmented formation are not conservatives striving to defend the Bill of Rights and strictly define constitutional language. They are anti-federalists, opposed to any meaningful central government, hostile to the principles of America's founders, and determined to re-create the loose association of local authorities that fell apart within a few years of its establishment.

Thoughts? Is Kanin on to something? Overstating his case? Who are the true heirs to America's founders?

Who cares about their petigree?
I'm just glad they're around to shake up things. The federal govt is too big and spends money that we don't have and more importantly doesn't *listen* to The People! It is in short, out of control.
I hope the Voters shake the federal govt to it's very foundations in November!

Were you as bothered about this before the other January, or is that something you've only started to fret about since Obama was elected, though? The number of people who've suddenly decided that their government has to practise fiscal responsibility, despite the fact that they'd spent the eight previous years cheering on Bush's decision to fight a war on hire purchase funding, is a bit depressing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

I disagree, on three grounds.
1. The Tea Party is not at all monolithic.  To say that they oppose any taxation oversimplifies.  While I have no doubt that there ARE Tea Partiers who feel that way, I assume that there are those who would be all right with simply reducing taxes, not eliminating them.
2. The Tea Partiers, as I understand them actually hold TWO beliefs.  One is to reduce taxation, and the other is to shrink government itself and its outlays.  This is much more sane and reasonable than the Bush/Reagan stance of deficits not mattering, and reducing taxes while growing government.
3. We have just witnessed the single greatest instance of the government ignoring the will of the people in the TARP bailout, in which Congress received a flood of communication, almost all opposing the bailout, and Congress went ahead and spent the money anyway, which the people had specifically told them not to spend.  Therefore, I disagree with Kanin's premise that we currently do have taxation with representation - we're moving dangerously far away from that.

I believe that we are moving towards taxation without representation...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

I disagree, on three grounds.
1. The Tea Party is not at all monolithic.  To say that they oppose any taxation oversimplifies.  While I have no doubt that there ARE Tea Partiers who feel that way, I assume that there are those who would be all right with simply reducing taxes, not eliminating them.
2. The Tea Partiers, as I understand them actually hold TWO beliefs.  One is to reduce taxation, and the other is to shrink government itself and its outlays.  This is much more sane and reasonable than the Bush/Reagan stance of deficits not mattering, and reducing taxes while growing government.
3. We have just witnessed the single greatest instance of the government ignoring the will of the people in the TARP bailout, in which Congress received a flood of communication, almost all opposing the bailout, and Congress went ahead and spent the money anyway, which the people had specifically told them not to spend.  Therefore, I disagree with Kanin's premise that we currently do have taxation with representation - we're moving dangerously far away from that.

I believe that we are moving towards taxation without representation...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Fair enough.
Obama's a Quisling? For whom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

I disagree, on three grounds.
1. The Tea Party is not at all monolithic.  To say that they oppose any taxation oversimplifies.  While I have no doubt that there ARE Tea Partiers who feel that way, I assume that there are those who would be all right with simply reducing taxes, not eliminating them.
2. The Tea Partiers, as I understand them actually hold TWO beliefs.  One is to reduce taxation, and the other is to shrink government itself and its outlays.  This is much more sane and reasonable than the Bush/Reagan stance of deficits not mattering, and reducing taxes while growing government.
3. We have just witnessed the single greatest instance of the government ignoring the will of the people in the TARP bailout, in which Congress received a flood of communication, almost all opposing the bailout, and Congress went ahead and spent the money anyway, which the people had specifically told them not to spend.  Therefore, I disagree with Kanin's premise that we currently do have taxation with representation - we're moving dangerously far away from that.

I believe that we are moving towards taxation without representation...

Steven, well said!
I called my congressman's and senator's offices and told them "NO" on bailing out big corporations.
Big political contributors shouldn't be able to skirt our bankruptcy laws!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

I disagree, on three grounds.
1. The Tea Party is not at all monolithic.  To say that they oppose any taxation oversimplifies.  While I have no doubt that there ARE Tea Partiers who feel that way, I assume that there are those who would be all right with simply reducing taxes, not eliminating them.
2. The Tea Partiers, as I understand them actually hold TWO beliefs.  One is to reduce taxation, and the other is to shrink government itself and its outlays.  This is much more sane and reasonable than the Bush/Reagan stance of deficits not mattering, and reducing taxes while growing government.
3. We have just witnessed the single greatest instance of the government ignoring the will of the people in the TARP bailout, in which Congress received a flood of communication, almost all opposing the bailout, and Congress went ahead and spent the money anyway, which the people had specifically told them not to spend. Therefore, I disagree with Kanin's premise that we currently do have taxation with representation - we're moving dangerously far away from that.

I believe that we are moving towards taxation without representation...

quote:

Congress received a flood of communication? The will of the people? By what measure, Steven? Since when do we have Govt by referendum? You don't believe that's proper in a Republic do you? Especially at a time of perceived emergency? The will of the people was exercised in the November 2008 election following the TARP decision. They will have to wait until this November to express themselves again. Then we shall see. I get a bit nervous when I see or hear someone professing to know the "will of the people" without a voting procedure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"You don't fight al qeada with Army Divisions who simply act as "targets." You fight them "dirty". Poison them, use bio and chem weapons, sabotage that kind of thing."


Why not torture their sons and daughters,... right in front of them.

Then there`s always rape to fall back on.Why not rape their sons and daughters,right in front of them?

I mean we`re fighting pure evil,aren`t we?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In a letter to the New Yorker (5-31-10), David B. Kanin, adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins, offers an interesting (to me, at least) perspective on Tea Partiers vis-a-vis the American founders.

quote:

The so-called Tea Partiers may portray themselves as heirs to the American Revolutionaries, but they are actually the descendants of those who lost the debate of 1788--in particular, the strain of constititutional opponents who violently resisted federal authority until Washington took to the battlefield against them. American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all.

Despite their "We the People" T-shirts, the visceral drivers of this fragmented formation are not conservatives striving to defend the Bill of Rights and strictly define constitutional language. They are anti-federalists, opposed to any meaningful central government, hostile to the principles of America's founders, and determined to re-create the loose association of local authorities that fell apart within a few years of its establishment.

Thoughts? Is Kanin on to something? Overstating his case? Who are the true heirs to America's founders?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Congress received a flood of communication? The will of the people? By what measure, Steven? Since when do we have Govt by referendum? You don't believe that's proper in a Republic do you? Especially at a time of perceived emergency? The will of the people was exercised in the November 2008 election following the TARP decision. They will have to wait until this November to express themselves again. Then we shall see. I get a bit nervous when I see or hear someone professing to know the "will of the people" without a voting procedure.

This raises an interesting dilemma for leaders in a republic: What do you do when "the people" seem to want one course of action, and you believe another course to be in the national interest?

quote:

This raises an interesting dilemma for leaders in a republic: What do you do when "the people" seem to want one course of action, and you believe another course to be in the national interest?

quote:

Steve Wynn Takes on Washington, Vegas & EBITDA

Steve Wynn says Americans are afraid. He’s just angry. “Washington is unpredictable these days,” declares the CEO of Wynn Resorts “No one has any idea what’s next…the uncertainty of the business climate in America is frightening, frightening to everybody, and it’s delaying the recovery.”

<snip>

Wynn speaks of “wild, uncontrolled spending,” and “unbelievable, unsustainable debt”. As he plans to split his company headquarters between Las Vegas and Macau, with a bigger emphasis on Macau because of its tremendous profitability, he has no qualms about dealing with the Chinese government.

Macau has been steady. The shocking, unexpected government is the one in Washington.”

He’s concerned about the prospect of inflation, of FHA repeating the mistakes of Fannie and Freddie, and the cost to business from the new healthcare law. “We’re on our way to Greece, in the hands of a confused, foolish government,” Wynn says. “It’s got to stop. It’s got to stop.”

<snip>

Full interview here

quote:

The number of people who've suddenly decided that their government has to practise fiscal responsibility, despite the fact that they'd spent the eight previous years cheering on Bush's decision to fight a war on hire purchase funding, is a bit depressing.