News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[nismaratwork]

To essentially quote a signature here on PF, and in turn quote Einstein: "Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yn4OmgsG77IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Authors_Against_Einstein+einstein+why+hundred+wrong&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

From what I can see, 30 years later there is still massive disagreement about the effects of "trickle down economics", with papers you can cite for, and against. Economics seems like a realm where arguments are unending, and it is more arcana than science or even art.

Maybe it's a good idea to steer back towards the basic principles of how the Tea Party, 9/12 Patriots and others behave, and their "grassroots" nature (or not), than debate economics that probably won't be settled for a decades?

 

[Gokul43201]

Then possibly your sources of news have selected for you.

That's entirely possible. I do not have a TV (well, I do, but it's sitting in a box somewhere) and get over 90% of my news from the internet, the rest from NPR.

 

[mheslep]

I don't get this. Are you seriously suggesting that your sampling technique via pulling names off a petition is better than WSJ's?

As you know I did not suggest that I or the source statistically sampled anything; the letter is of course one sided. The WSJ used the term.

If not what's your point? How does you list help identify the distribution of opinions?

Your complaint is that WSJ sampling was poor. Then help us find a better sample, not a poorer one!

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion. From what I can tell the WSJ is not really sampling at all. They apparently have a group of 60 or so economists in their rolodex who work professionally as forecasters with various macro firms - no academics - that they continually go do for forecasts and surveys. In this context the CATO letter adds to the public knowledge of the opinion of economists on the stimulus.

 

[nismaratwork]

As you know I did not suggest that I or the source statistically sampled anything; the letter is of course one sided. The WSJ used the term.

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion. From what I can tell the WSJ is not really sampling at all. They apparently have a group of 60 or so economists in their rolodex who work professionally as forecasters with various macro firms - no academics - that they continually go do for forecasts and surveys. In this context the CATO letter adds to the public knowledge of the opinion of economists on the stimulus.

I see your point, but isn't that still an appeal to authority x100? A fallacy is a fallacy after all...

 

[turbo]

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion. From what I can tell the WSJ is not really sampling at all. They apparently have a group of 60 or so economists in their rolodex who work professionally as forecasters with various macro firms - no academics - that they continually go do for forecasts and surveys. In this context the CATO letter adds to the public knowledge of the opinion of economists on the stimulus.

And the WSJ is a perfectly neutral purveyor of "news" as opposed to opinion, right?

 

[mheslep]

And the WSJ is a perfectly neutral purveyor of "news" as opposed to opinion, right?

? Look all I'm saying is there are more sources of economic opinion out there than the WSJ poll that Gokul cited. Make of them what you will, as I'm not labeling them.

 

[nismaratwork]

? Look all I'm saying is there are more sources of economic opinion out there than the WSJ poll that Gokul cited. Make of them what you will, as I'm not labeling them.

Your point was to add opinions to the mix, but for no particular reason other than contrast?

 

[Gokul43201]

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion.

It's easy to find people that oppose any big action, and much harder to find supporters.

If you agree with something, you sit on your couch in front of the TV and quietly nod your head; if you oppose it, you get out on the street with signs and protest. Opposers tend to have a lot more visibility, and are generally louder than supporters.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's easy to find people that oppose any big action, and much harder to find supporters.

If you agree with something, you sit on your couch in front of the TV and quietly nod your head; if you oppose it, you get out on the street with signs and protest. Opposers tend to have a lot more visibility, and are generally louder than supporters.

...With the obvious exceptions being sports fans.

 

[CAC1001]

It's easy to find people that oppose any big action, and much harder to find supporters.

Would this apply to academics and professionals though? Because with academics and professionals, you can just call them up, right? Whereas among the general populace, it is easier to find the people opposed to something big because, as you said, they come out and protest (ex. Iraq War protests under Bush, Tea Parties under Obama).

 

[Gokul43201]

Would this apply to academics and professionals though? Because with academics and professionals, you can just call them up, right? Whereas among the general populace, it is easier to find the people opposed to something big because, as you said, they come out and protest (ex. Iraq War protests under Bush, Tea Parties under Obama).

Acedemics and professional too, of course.

41 Nobel Laureates sign petition to oppose Iraq War

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_15974837\

31,000 scientists reject Global Warming and oppose Kyoto Accord

Over 750 scientists dispute Darwinism

etc. etc.

 

[nismaratwork]

Acedemics and professional too, of course.

41 Nobel Laureates sign petition to oppose Iraq War

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_15974837\

31,000 scientists reject Global Warming and oppose Kyoto Accord

Over 750 scientists dispute Darwinism

etc. etc.

Is the dissent from Darwinism a dissent from evolution, or a particular model of evolution? PLEASE let it be the later, because the former is just upsetting.

I think when you oppose something it's satisfying to make yourself heard, but when you support something you tend to feel that things are already going your way. If you support something which is no longer happening, then you act in opposition to the force that removed it... it's still all about shouting down actions you dislike, rather than shouting approval.

 

[edward]

It looks like every right wing group wants a piece of the Tea Party. The John Birch Society of Virginia bused in their members. I would suppose other state affiliates did the same.

Is Beck aware of this??

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-community/groups/viewgroup/216-Birching+the+912+Rally+in+DC

 

[nismaratwork]

It looks like every right wing group wants a piece of the Tea Party. The John Birch Society of Virginia bused in their members. I would suppose other state affiliates did the same.

Is Beck aware of this??

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-community/groups/viewgroup/216-Birching+the+912+Rally+in+DC

Didn't Beck say he was getting his "plan" from god? Presumably the 'the boss' keeps his loyal twit, I mean servan... informed.

 

[Gokul43201]

 

[nismaratwork]

She's one dumb bunny.

 

[brainstorm]

She's one dumb bunny.

It is bad that she doesn't understand evolution in rejecting its philosophy she disagrees with. But then how many politicians who reject religious ideas have a strong grasp on those except insofar as they need to in order to ridicule them as being nonsense. Imo, there is just a general pattern of superiorism where people decide to be philosophically opposed to some ideology, whether it be evolution, religion, or whatever and then they end up strawmanning it because 1) they're not motivated to truly comprehend something they have pre-ordained as value-less or even detrimental to their cause 2) they may actually be afraid that if they comprehend it at the level that its supporters do, that they would become brainwashed and co-opted to the other side.

So what is the point of progressives taunting conservatives for eschewing evolution or conservatives taunting progressives for failing to grasp religion at the level of a believer? Aren't both just examples of people trying to undermine their opponents by calling them stupid for not accepting the ideology they're against?

 

[nismaratwork]

It is bad that she doesn't understand evolution in rejecting its philosophy she disagrees with. But then how many politicians who reject religious ideas have a strong grasp on those except insofar as they need to in order to ridicule them as being nonsense. Imo, there is just a general pattern of superiorism where people decide to be philosophically opposed to some ideology, whether it be evolution, religion, or whatever and then they end up strawmanning it because 1) they're not motivated to truly comprehend something they have pre-ordained as value-less or even detrimental to their cause 2) they may actually be afraid that if they comprehend it at the level that its supporters do, that they would become brainwashed and co-opted to the other side.

So what is the point of progressives taunting conservatives for eschewing evolution or conservatives taunting progressives for failing to grasp religion at the level of a believer? Aren't both just examples of people trying to undermine their opponents by calling them stupid for not accepting the ideology they're against?

Ideologies based on fantasy aren't ideologies, they're delusions. There are people in this country who think that the Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of history. This isn't like the abortion issue, or a number of other... this is a pure fantasy, which also implies a massive conspiracy by "pro-evolution" politicians, scientists, and educators. It's complete bunk, not an ideology.

That said, it's hardly the only reason I called O'donnell a dumb bunny. The witchcraft comments, this, and more... she's an idiot and there's video evidence of her idiocy.

 

[Office_Shredder]

There are people in this country who think that the Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of history.

Imo, there is just a general pattern of superiorism where people decide to be philosophically opposed to some ideology, whether it be evolution, religion, or whatever and then they end up strawmanning it

I have no idea what you're talking about brainstorm

 

[nismaratwork]

I have no idea what you're talking about brainstorm

I think he means that people who believe in creationism are subject to a sense of superiority as expressed by people like me. He's right, but when people believe in vegetarian t-rexes, they should be subject to ridicule.

edit: by creationism I mean "6000 years ago", not "evolution as it is on the books, but that was how god did it". The latter requires no proof, and doesn't contradict evolution at least.

 

[CAC1001]

I think he means that people who believe in creationism are subject to a sense of superiority as expressed by people like me. He's right, but when people believe in vegetarian t-rexes, they should be subject to ridicule.

I don't know if a few actual scientists ever held to it or not, but I actually did read a theory once where some speculated that the T-Rex might have been a herbivore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This gets back to my comment about evolution being a test question.

If O'Donnell had given a nuanced answer, such as, "I realize that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but faith allows room for other beliefs,", I could respect that. But her opinion is that evolution is a myth. That is just looney.

Actually, it is a statement of extreme ignorance.

 

[Char. Limit]

This gets back to my comment about evolution being a test question.

If O'Donnell had given a nuanced answer, such as, "I realize that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but faith allows room for other beliefs,", I could respect that. But her opinion is that evolution is a myth. That is just looney.

Actually, it is a statement of extreme ignorance.

And that's why I'm not voting for her!

No, actually it's because I don't live there and I didn't make the voting deadline. But same thing really.

 

[Al68]

She's one dumb bunny.

I have to agree with Ivan on this:

Actually, it is a statement of extreme ignorance.

I think "ignorant" is the right word instead of "dumb". It's not like her opinion is based years of extensive study of evolution, and was still too stupid to understand it. Her opinion is based on ignorance.

That being said, it would be way down my list of "test questions". The question on the top of my list would be about violating the constitution, and that would easily disqualify her Dem opponent.

Having weird, ignorant ideas about evolution isn't a good thing, but choosing between that and an enemy of the constitution is an easy choice.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know if a few actual scientists ever held to it or not, but I actually did read a theory once where some speculated that the T-Rex might have been a herbivore.

There was a paper that was in the news a few years ago about T-Rex being a possible scavenger. The explanation - at least the version I recall from the reporting - was related to indications that there was not enough muscle mass in its relatively puny fore legs (arms?) for it to be an effective predator. It's not inconceivable that there may have been a herbivorous version of this conjecture as well.

I wonder about the herbivorous T-Rex ... did it sit by itself to eat grass/roots? Or did it gather up a number of its buddies and throw a T-Party?

 

[CAC1001]

There was a paper that was in the news a few years ago about T-Rex being a possible scavenger. The explanation - at least the version I recall from the reporting - was related to indications that there was not enough muscle mass in its relatively puny fore legs (arms?) for it to be an effective predator. It's not inconceivable that there may have been a herbivorous version of this conjecture as well.

I wonder about the herbivorous T-Rex ... did it sit by itself to eat grass/roots? Or did it gather up a number of its buddies and throw a T-Party?

Ha ha funny

 

[nismaratwork]

I have to agree with Ivan on this:I think "ignorant" is the right word instead of "dumb". It's not like her opinion is based years of extensive study of evolution, and was still too stupid to understand it. Her opinion is based on ignorance.

That being said, it would be way down my list of "test questions". The question on the top of my list would be about violating the constitution, and that would easily disqualify her Dem opponent.

Having weird, ignorant ideas about evolution isn't a good thing, but choosing between that and an enemy of the constitution is an easy choice.

To be so ignorant in the position she's been in for over a decade is stupidity, not just ignorance.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Having weird, ignorant ideas about evolution isn't a good thing, but choosing between that and an enemy of the constitution is an easy choice.

What makes her opponent an enemy of the Constitution?

Considering all of the crap that Bush and Cheney pulled, I find this objection to be highly inconsistent. Has her opponent tortured anyone?

 

[Al68]

What makes her opponent an enemy of the Constitution?

I'll just give a single example, since it would take a book to give a full answer, and I'm too lazy for that.

His support of Obama's health care bill. There are plenty of other threads on this issue with explanations of why it violates the constitution.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but the bulk of the Dems' agenda are things not authorized anywhere in the constitution, and Coons voluntarily joined the Dem Party.

Some quotes from an article he wrote in college: "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist":

"The ideal of America as a ‘beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world' was not exactly based on reality."

He went on to state that his belief in the "miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities of America" may be untrue.

Coons concluded the article with the statement that he had "returned to loving America, but in a way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Coons)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll just give a single example, since it would take a book to give a full answer, and I'm too lazy for that.

His support of Obama's health care bill. There are plenty of other threads on this issue with explanations of why it violates the constitution.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but the bulk of the Dems' agenda are things not authorized anywhere in the constitution, and Coons voluntarily joined the Dem Party.

Some quotes from an article he wrote in college: "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist":

"The ideal of America as a ‘beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world' was not exactly based on reality."

He went on to state that his belief in the "miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities of America" may be untrue.

Coons concluded the article with the statement that he had "returned to loving America, but in a way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Coons)

This applies to the discussion because I want to understand your logic.

My response is that his quotes say nothing about the Constitition and are surely taken out of context. As for health care and the rest, by your logic, everyone who supports Obama is an enemy of the Constitution. Enemies of the Constituion are by defintion of enemies of the country.

So your position is basically that all Democrats who have supported Obama are enemies of the Constitution and the country. Got it. 53% of the country are enemies.

Is it any wonder that Obama was unsuccessful in his efforts towards bipartisanship?

 

[mheslep]

53% of the country ...

Past tense, way past.

 

[Al68]

So your position is basically that all Democrats who have supported Obama are enemies of the Constitution...

The ones who know better, yes. Which includes those holding office.

But enemy of the constitution isn't the same as enemy of the country. For example one might be an enemy of Cuba's constitution without being an enemy of Cuba.

 

[Galteeth]

I'd like to point out that while O'donnell takes the cake, it doesn't seem as though the other participants in that show are well versed in evolution.

O'donnell,in the clip, seems to be making the common fallacious argument "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

As we know, it is more accurate to say that both evolved from a common ancestor, but the response "it takes time" seems to indicate the other participants believe that monkeys are currently in the process of evolving into humans and just haven't gotten there yet, or something.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'll just give a single example, since it would take a book to give a full answer, and I'm too lazy for that.

Would you give, say, three others? I don't need a whole book, but I don't find your example particularly convincing. Suppose I accepted the premise that the healthcare act was unconstitutional. It would not follow that those who supported it are enemies of the Constitution: they may (wrongly, under the premise) believe it is constitutional, for example. Further, it does not follow that those who voted for the bill supported it: they may have traded favors with the Democratic whip, feeling that improvements in one area (possibly even making some other aspect of government more constitutional) trump whatever feelings they may have on the healthcare act.

And, of course, the premise may simply be wrong. Article 1, §8 of the Constitution (in particular, its "Elastic Clause") has been interpreted quite broadly by the Supreme Court, which is tasked in the Constitution itself to interpret it...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The ones who know better, yes. Which includes those holding office.

But enemy of the constitution isn't the same as enemy of the country. For example one might be an enemy of Cuba's constitution without being an enemy of Cuba.

No, it doesn't work that way. Soldiers and politicians alike are sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies. The don't swear to protect the corner of First and Main, or Baseball, the nearest school, or the flag. This is why we go to war. So if you call someone an enemy of the Constitution, you had better mean it.

When Bush and Cheney authorized torture [assuming that Bush knew what he was signing], they met my criteria for "enemy of the State". I really do believe this was treason. But I would never say this about someone who merely disagrees about health care.

At that time, when we seemingly chose to be a country that taps the phones of innocent people, tortures people, ignores due process, and launches unjustified invasions of countries, my wife and I decided to leave the country. The only other option in my mind was civil war. And I will tell you that I thought about that more than once. That's where I thought we may be going. But, since I oppose war, we began looking at options. Were it not for the dramatic turnaround seen with the election of Obama, we would still be planning to leave. Obama's election restored a bit of my faith in the American people.

If you call someone an enemy of the Constitution, you had better mean it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Would it really be that hard to prove that virtually every single Senator in office for sufficiently long (I think one full 6-yr term ought to be enough) to have said a few things and cast a few votes is "an enemy of the Constitution"?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Would it really be that hard to prove that virtually every single Senator in office for sufficiently long (I think one full 6-yr term ought to be enough) to have said a few things and cast a few votes is "an enemy of the Constitution"?

I don't know. (I assume from the way you left that open that you feel it's evident.) I suppose it would depend on one's definition of "enemy of the Constitution".

 

[edward]

I agree with Paul Krugman. The Tea party is being used.

A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re staring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”

Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=columnists

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know. (I assume from the way you left that open that you feel it's evident.) I suppose it would depend on one's definition of "enemy of the Constitution".

Going by al's definition (post #579),I guess anyone who supports a position that is unconstitutional is an enemy of the Constitution.

 

[edward]

Tea Party Tough.

Is this for real or a spoof? Linda McMahon won the Connecticut senatorial primary.

 

[CAC1001]

When Bush and Cheney authorized torture [assuming that Bush knew what he was signing], they met my criteria for "enemy of the State". I really do believe this was treason..

The waterboarding was necessary to get the terrorists to cooperate, and was an emergency measure. IMO, President Bush should be applauded for having had the guts to do something controversial in the interests of protecting our nation as opposed to risking letting another attack happen simply so that he could protect himself.

BTW, remember who the waterboarding was done to! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a mastermind behind 9/11 and a man who has boasted of having beheaded the journalist Daniel Pearl. Subjecting him to waterboarding in order to force his cooperation to prevent further attacks, I do not see as treason.

At that time, when we seemingly chose to be a country that taps the phones of innocent people,

We don't. If the government wants to tap your phone, they need a warrant. The "wiretapping" program was a surveillance program for international signals from overseas.

tortures people,

Only a few very high-profile terrorists who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans, and that was to force them to cooperate.

ignores due process,

Howso?

and launches unjustified invasions of countries,

Seemed justified at the time.

my wife and I decided to leave the country. The only other option in my mind was civil war. And I will tell you that I thought about that more than once. That's where I thought we may be going.

People swore the country was headed for dictatorship and/or civil war under Bush, now people feel the country is headed for civil war or dictatorship under Obama.

But, since I oppose war, we began looking at options.

You were going to launch a civil war?

Were it not for the dramatic turnaround seen with the election of Obama, we would still be planning to leave. Obama's election restored a bit of my faith in the American people.

Obama has continued the Bush "wiretapping" program, continued Guantanomo Bay, and the attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court fell through. I also think if push ever comes to shove, Obama will utilize waterboarding.

 

[CAC1001]

Is it any wonder that Obama was unsuccessful in his efforts towards bipartisanship?

Which efforts? He wasn't bipartisan in the stimulus, or the healthcare legislation (which by definition couldn't be bipartisan), or the financial legislation.

 

[turbo]

Which efforts? He wasn't bipartisan in the stimulus, or the healthcare legislation (which by definition couldn't be bipartisan), or the financial legislation.

The stimulus/bailout program was started by Bush. As soon as Obama took office, the Republicans started saying "NO". The weak healthcare reform bill was gutted thanks to the "bipartisanship" that allowed Snowe to call all the shots and kill the public option before the bill got out of committee. The Republicans seem determined to deny Obama and the Democrats any accomplishment so that they can paint the Dems as failures.

Moderate Republicans are used as stalking horses, and are generally only cooperative as long as they think that the general electorate is favorable toward Democratic proposals. Bipartisanship is long dead in DC.

 

[CAC1001]

The stimulus/bailout program was started by Bush. As soon as Obama took office, the Republicans started saying "NO".

Don't confuse TARP with the stimulus. They are two completely separate things. TARP was to bailout the financial system, and was done reluctantly by Bush. The stimulus was all President Obama and the Democrats, and they kept the Republicans out.

Some even said that was a mistake because if they had involved the Republicans, it could have torn the Republican party in two, as some Republicans would have supported a form of stimulus, while others would have been completely against any stimulus, others only for stimulus if tax cuts as opposed to government spending, etc...

The weak healthcare reform bill was gutted thanks to the "bipartisanship" that allowed Snowe to call all the shots and kill the public option before the bill got out of committee. The Republicans seem determined to deny Obama and the Democrats any accomplishment so that they can paint the Dems as failures.

This I don't understand. Isn't the bill itself a public option? Instead of creating a separate government program, they put the health insurance companies under extreme regulation, in exchange they mandate the people purchase the health insurance companies' product, people who refuse pay a fine, and those who cannot afford it are subsidized.

Isn't that a public option basically?

Moderate Republicans are used as stalking horses, and are generally only cooperative as long as they think that the general electorate is favorable toward Democratic proposals. Bipartisanship is long dead in DC.

IMO, there cannot be bipartisanship on issues with which the parties have fundamental disagreements.

 

[Jasongreat]

I guess anyone who supports a position that is unconstitutional is an enemy of the Constitution.

Anyone who supports a position that government can do something that is not included in the constitution, and goes about changing the meaning of words or uses the excuse that the people agree(polls), instead of changing the document in the proper way of adding ammendments, is an enemy to the constitution, and therefore an enemy to me . There are many examples on all sides of the aisle and each branch of government. Atleast that's my opinion.

 

[mheslep]

I agree with Paul Krugman. The Tea party is being used.

As it happens, I agree with Jonah Goldberg on what Paul Krugman wrote about the Tea Party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248600/asininity-threat-level-high-jonah-goldberg
Asininity Threat Level: High

While carrying water on the latest — and longstanding — talking point: Fox News evil, vast right wing conspiracy, blah blah blah, Krugman has a jaw-droppingly idiotic first sentence.

A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re staring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane."​

I’m sure he thinks this is extremely clever and I’m sure he and Mrs. Krugman high-fived after one of them wrote it, but I’m growing weary of Krugman’s relentless, smirking, insinuations that his ideological opponents are racists. The clear meaning of this sentence, and the column, is “Har, har you stupid mouth-breathing Republican dupes, you thought you were mounting a racial revival for the white man but instead you’re simply pawns of the ruling class.”

The rest is the usual fill-in-the-blank stuff he could have cribbed from a David Brock email.

Oh, and just for the record, “Birth of A Nation” was liberal Democratic icon Woodrow Wilson’s favorite movie, which he screened in the White House for congressmen and justices. But that’s neither here nor there.

I.e. outside of professional economic publications, Krugman/Wells are hack race baiters.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
When Bush and Cheney authorized torture [assuming that Bush knew what he was signing], they met my criteria for "enemy of the State". I really do believe this was treason. [...]

The only other option in my mind was civil war. And I will tell you that I thought about that more than once. [...]

Civil war? In other words, the violent over throw of the government of the US? In other words, treason.

 

[Al68]

Would you give, say, three others?

If I can assume he agrees with most Dems, I could name them endlessly, from Minimum wage laws to forcefully regulating private enterprises to gun control laws.

I don't need a whole book, but I don't find your example particularly convincing.

If you don't think it's unconstitutional to outlaw private insurance policies and force people to buy government "approved" policies, then it's doubtful you would think the rest of their agenda is unconstitutional. The entire economic agenda of Dems consists of an ever increasing use of force by government to interfere with people's private business.

Suppose I accepted the premise that the healthcare act was unconstitutional. It would not follow that those who supported it are enemies of the Constitution: they may (wrongly, under the premise) believe it is constitutional, for example.

Yes, I agree. That's why I qualified my statement with "those who know better".

Further, it does not follow that those who voted for the bill supported it: they may have traded favors with the Democratic whip, feeling that improvements in one area (possibly even making some other aspect of government more constitutional) trump whatever feelings they may have on the healthcare act.

So they voted to violate the constitution as a favor trade instead of for their own agenda? That isn't much better.

And, of course, the premise may simply be wrong. Article 1, §8 of the Constitution (in particular, its "Elastic Clause") has been interpreted quite broadly...

far more broadly than palatable. Dems basically consider the federal government's power to serve their agenda to be unlimited.

...the Supreme Court, which is tasked in the Constitution itself to interpret it...

Really? Which part of the constitution? (warning, this is a trick question).

 

[Al68]

No, it doesn't work that way.

Ignoring the bulk of your post, I'll just say that I should have used the word "necessarily". An enemy of the constitution isn't necessarily an enemy of the country.

 

[Al68]

Going by al's definition (post #579),I guess anyone who supports a position that is unconstitutional is an enemy of the Constitution.

Of course. I used the words "enemy of the constitution" to mean someone who advocates violating it. But I was specifically referring to those holding office who took an oath not to violate it in order to gain the power to violate it.