News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[WhoWee]

I'm sorry to disappoint you - I have no plans to defend his actions in general. You are the one making claims - it is your job to justify them. Saying that Obama wants to expand welfare programs in the US because an entrepreneur in India was taking measures to improve the "welfare" of his employees is a bogus connection. Saying the trip costs $200 mill a day, when those expenses are unknown, is a bogus claim. Saying that a big fraction of the navy is being diverted away from more important responsibilities, when the Pentagon denies this, is a bogus claim. Saying that eight hundred odd rooms have been booked at a hotel that only has a third of that number of rooms is a bogus claim. I'm more than happy to simply point out exactly what looks more like "nonsense" here.

There's a wall in the Reagan Presidential library that displays the flags of all the countries that Reagan visited. Should we have someone try and justify every one of those visits? Reagan visited 12 countries during his second year in office. So far, Obama has visited 4 countries this year. And that doesn't tell us a thing about whether the trips were justified.

I am disappointed. I posted news accounts from Indian sources - this is their perspective of the trip. You are correct, we don't know what this trip is actually going to cost taxpayers.

I wonder if the companies (like GE) are paying their own way? Afterall, they clearly went there to finalize very lucrative deals - it's not as if they can't write the expenses off.

As for the hotel, it's also clear that the entire entourage isn't staying in less than 300 rooms - they are staying somewhere nearby.

As for the welfare comment - I was being snide - should have labelled it as such.

As for the Navy, I have no problem with ships sailing into a war zone (region) where the President is visiting. I also noticed that drone attacks have been successful in Pakistan in the past few days.

Again, this thread is about the Tea Party movement and average citizens questioning why and what our leaders are doing. While this trip can be painted as creating jobs, it can also be said these deals would have happened even if he hadn't gone to India - unless he made promises that we don't know about.

 

[jreelawg]

I wonder how much it cost us a day to provide security for the Karzi regime in Afghanistan compared to how much it costs us to provide security for our president on his trip to Asia?

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder how much it cost us a day to provide security for the Karzi regime in Afghanistan compared to how much it costs us to provide security for our president on his trip to Asia?

I think both are valid questions in the context of the Tea Party wanting to know more from the most transparent Presidency of all time.

 

[jreelawg]

Concerning the cost of Obama's trip to Asia, wouldn't the Navy, and the secret service, get paid anyways. wether or not they are in Asia? Is this supposed 200 million a day the cost of the hotel rooms and fuel costs alone?

 

[jreelawg]

I think both are valid questions in the context of the Tea Party wanting to know more from the most transparent Presidency of all time.

And the Tea Party is the most transparent political organization ever right? I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected. A campaign tactic of keeping silent on most issues, and refusing to answer questions is a real hopeful change.

 

[WhoWee]

And the Tea Party is the most transparent political organization ever right? I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected. A campaign tactic of keeping silent on most issues, and refusing to answer questions is a real hopeful change.

Do you have a link - to help us all remember? The main difference is that Obama promised transparency.

 

[jreelawg]

Do you have a link - to help us all remember? The main difference is that Obama promised transparency.

He promised to try and make government more transparent. This can't be difficult being that he came after the GOP. I think he probably is more transparent than the previous administration. How dumb is it though, to use the argument that he isn't transparent enough when your own preference is for someone drastically less transparent. At least they are honest about it I guess.

 

[WhoWee]

He promised to try and make government more transparent. This can't be difficult being that he came after the GOP. I think he probably is more transparent than the previous administration. How dumb is it though, to use the argument that he isn't transparent enough when your own preference is for someone drastically less transparent. At least they are honest about it I guess.

You said "I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected." - now please, do you have a link.

As for the discussion of transparency - it was arguably the cornerstone of Obama's campaign.

 

[jreelawg]

You said "I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected." - now please, do you have a link.

As for the discussion of transparency - it was arguably the cornerstone of Obama's campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_ill_answer_those.html

I might of missed the part where you explained how Obama's office has been Opaque? Was this just about the cost of the trip?

 

[WhoWee]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_ill_answer_those.html

I might of missed the part where you explained how Obama's office has been Opaque? Was this just about the cost of the trip?

Ok? You have a tape of a reporter chasing her through an airport parking garage?

I thought you had something like this (from her opponent - a few years ago):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/20/politics/main2709229.shtml
""I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid."

 

[Gokul43201]

I have a question: Within the available set of fiscal conservatives in Republican primaries, how often has the Tea Party endorsed a more socially liberal candidate over a politically viable social conservative? One that I know of is Paul. Who are the others?

 

[mheslep]

I have a question: Within the available set of fiscal conservatives in Republican primaries, how often has the Tea Party endorsed a more socially liberal candidate over a politically viable social conservative? One that I know of is Paul. Who are the others?

Oh good question. I think there are many cases. Back later ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have a question: Within the available set of fiscal conservatives in Republican primaries, how often has the Tea Party endorsed a more socially liberal candidate over a politically viable social conservative? One that I know of is Paul. Who are the others?

Paul is socially liberal?

Did anyone see Paul on Parker-Spitzer yesterday? Interestingly, one of the only buget cuts he doesn't support [though he won't name any specific viable cuts] is one that reduces fees to doctors for Medicare services. Parker pointed out this constitutes either 30% or 50% [not sure now which number was cited] of Rand Paul's income!

Paul thought Spitzer was being unfair. What a flimflam man.

 

[Gokul43201]

Paul is socially liberal?

Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.

Ah, I see.

I see these as traditional conservative values - one's that I do agree with and in part [conceptually] the basis for my own history as a Republican. However, his comments about civil rights [denial of services based on race] come to mind as an outlier.

 

[Gokul43201]

However, his comments about civil rights [denial of services based on race] come to mind as an outlier.

I think his position on that issue is also one that is as close to a traditional libertarian position as I've heard from anyone in Congress. Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think his position on that issue is also one that is as close to a traditional libertarian position as I've heard from anyone in Congress. Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

That is how I understood his comments as well.

It was this sort of attitude that brought the Federal troops to the South during the civil rights struggle. He would have us turn the clocks back 100 years to the day when "niggers" were run out of town.

Let there be no mistake. We moved beyond this decades ago and his position is all about violating the rights of the individual.

 

[mheslep]

Oh good question. I think there are many cases. Back later ...

Hmmm. Well I'm finding it difficult to come with answers. Hard to find who supported who back in the primaries. The Tea Party Express (a wing that endorses, other wings won't endorse) endorsed a Democrat for the House (Idaho) early on, but them later reversed and picked up the Republican instead.

 

[mheslep]

Ivan, exactly how did you read Gokul's post:

...Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

(highlights mine)
then agree that is indeed Paul's position:

That is how I understood his comments as well.

and then go on to equate the above with

It was this sort of attitude that brought the Federal troops to the South during the civil rights struggle. He would have us turn the clocks back 100 years to the day when "niggers" were run out of town...

 

[CAC1001]

Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Also I wouldn't myself call those socially-liberal positions (except for the medical marijuana issue), just a different branch of conservatism. Remember there are different types of conservatives, for example there are your conservatives who emphasize a strong national defense and military intervention overseas when needed, then there are your conservatives who claim we should be much more isolationist, and that we don't need a military with a bunch of overseas bases and so forth as we have.

One type of conservative is okay with the Patriot Act, others see it as an affront to liberty. and so on.

 

[Char. Limit]

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Also I wouldn't myself call those socially-liberal positions (except for the medical marijuana issue), just a different branch of conservatism. Remember there are different types of conservatives, for example there are your conservatives who emphasize a strong national defense and military intervention overseas when needed, then there are your conservatives who claim we should be much more isolationist, and that we don't need a military with a bunch of overseas bases and so forth as we have.

One type of conservative is okay with the Patriot Act, others see it as an affront to liberty. and so on.

Erm, going with the definition of statist as preferring to restrict both personal and economic freedom...

The USA PATRIOT act is exactly fitting the definition of statist. So I don't see the conflict here.

 

[BobG]

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Being pro-life could be a consistent libertarian position. It's a position that depends on when one believes an entity becomes a person with certain inalienable rights and when that person becomes a citizen with even more rights.

While pro-life is most often associated with conservatives, it's not a purely political question, nor necessarily a religious question.

 

[WhoWee]

Did anyone see Paul on Parker-Spitzer yesterday? QUOTE]

Other than to satisfy a curiosity - does anyone watch this show regularly?

 

[WhoWee]

The Tea Party has been calling for a common sense approach to spending since day one. Sometimes, the Left and Right see the same statistic and interpret the results differently. This is a recent development that we can actually monitor for specific responses.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2010/11/oregon_us_students_lag_behind.html
"Among the 56 countries that participated in the international math test, the United States ranked 31st, falling behind most industrialized nations with about 6 percent of students nationwide at an advanced level of math achievement. The percentage of U.S. students with higher math skills was most similar to scores in Russia and Spain, according to the data released Wednesday by professors from Harvard, Stanford and the University of Munich.

Taiwan was at the top of the list, with nearly 30 percent of its students reaching an advanced level of math skills. Hong Kong, Korea, Finland and Switzerland rounded out the top five. In each country, more than 15 percent of students reached the top level in math. "

I'll guess the Democrats will call for increased spending on education and Republicans will start talking about vouchers. The common sense approach might be to evaluate and compare the differences in curriculum, study habits, minimum standards/expectations between the US and the top 5 achievers.

We might also take a look at whether teachers in those countries are protected by unions and take 3 to 4 months off each school year.

 

[BobG]

The Tea Party has been calling for a common sense approach to spending since day one. Sometimes, the Left and Right see the same statistic and interpret the results differently. This is a recent development that we can actually monitor for specific responses.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2010/11/oregon_us_students_lag_behind.html
"Among the 56 countries that participated in the international math test, the United States ranked 31st, falling behind most industrialized nations with about 6 percent of students nationwide at an advanced level of math achievement. The percentage of U.S. students with higher math skills was most similar to scores in Russia and Spain, according to the data released Wednesday by professors from Harvard, Stanford and the University of Munich.

Taiwan was at the top of the list, with nearly 30 percent of its students reaching an advanced level of math skills. Hong Kong, Korea, Finland and Switzerland rounded out the top five. In each country, more than 15 percent of students reached the top level in math. "

I'll guess the Democrats will call for increased spending on education and Republicans will start talking about vouchers. The common sense approach might be to evaluate and compare the differences in curriculum, study habits, minimum standards/expectations between the US and the top 5 achievers.

We might also take a look at whether teachers in those countries are protected by unions and take 3 to 4 months off each school year.

Or a completely different trend could be discovered that would indicate a solution completely different from vouchers or a general spending increase or a change in teacher employment practices.

Looking at TIMSS scores (which may include different countries, hence a different ranking), the US is a little higher at 11th for math and science scores.

A more detailed look at the US statistics shows:

Asian Americans have scores similar to Asian countries (i.e. very high).
White Americans have scores similar to the best European countries.
Hispanic Americans have scores similar to lower ranked European countries.
Black Americans have scores similar to the worst European countries.

All of which is higher than most of the world.

That means the differences could be genetic (except then Hispanic scores would be similar to Latin American scores and Black scores would be similar to African scores), it could be cultural, or it could be economic (i.e - Asians are more prosperous and attend schools in the best suburbs, followed by Whites, etc), or some combination of factors.

The simplistic answers given as campaign slogans are usually overly simplistic - and wrong. And entire movements based on simplistic answers are usually wrong.

 

[WhoWee]

Or a completely different trend could be discovered that would indicate a solution completely different from vouchers or a general spending increase or a change in teacher employment practices.

Looking at TIMSS scores (which may include different countries, hence a different ranking), the US is a little higher at 11th for math and science scores.

A more detailed look at the US statistics shows:

Asian Americans have scores similar to Asian countries (i.e. very high).
White Americans have scores similar to the best European countries.
Hispanic Americans have scores similar to lower ranked European countries.
Black Americans have scores similar to the worst European countries.

All of which is higher than most of the world.

That means the differences could be genetic (except then Hispanic scores would be similar to Latin American scores and Black scores would be similar to African scores), it could be cultural, or it could be economic (i.e - Asians are more prosperous and attend schools in the best suburbs, followed by Whites, etc), or some combination of factors.

The simplistic answers given as campaign slogans are usually overly simplistic - and wrong. And entire movements based on simplistic answers are usually wrong.

All anyone needs to do is peek in the window of any graduate program in the country.

My guess is that the countries achieving the best results are probably challenging all of their students equally - not just teaching at a level to reach a standardized test score and handing out diplomas based upon attendance.

IMO, we need to raise the bar. Unfortunately, it has to start at an early age.

 

[BobG]

All anyone needs to do is peek in the window of any graduate program in the country.

My guess is that the countries achieving the best results are probably challenging all of their students equally - not just teaching at a level to reach a standardized test score and handing out diplomas based upon attendance.

IMO, we need to raise the bar. Unfortunately, it has to start at an early age.

Your opinion is based on a guess?

Hopefully it's a common sense guess, in which case the Tea Party would approve.

Actually, that categorization would apply to both parties. The more public attention a topic is given, the more likely objective approaches to it will disappear. We're not exactly a rational voting public.

 

[WhoWee]

Your opinion is based on a guess?

Hopefully it's a common sense guess, in which case the Tea Party would approve.

Actually, that categorization would apply to both parties. The more public attention a topic is given, the more likely objective approaches to it will disappear. We're not exactly a rational voting public.

My wife is an educator and I have 4 kids - monitor homework on a daily basis. The attitude of the school system is to stay focused on the "prize" - above average standardized test scores.

Let's ask a few PF members who hail from the high achievement countries (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea) to comment. If you are from one of these countries - please shed some light on the subject.

 

[Al68]

Being pro-life could be a consistent libertarian position. It's a position that depends on when one believes an entity becomes a person with certain inalienable rights...

This is a good point, as I certainly consider a fetus to be a person, and to have certain inalienable rights. But the "pro-life" position is that a fetus has a special right that none of the rest of us have: the right to force another person to host them against their will. Those inalienable rights, even if a fetus is considered a person, do not include the right to force another person to act as host. As heartless as it sounds, a fetus exists parasitically, and requires a host to live. No person, fetus, baby, or adult, is entitled to force another person to host them.

One could argue that a baby after birth also requires a host, and that's true, but after birth, that host can be someone besides the mother, and we have plenty of volunteers.

and when that person becomes a citizen with even more rights.

Eligibility for citizenship must necessarily be determined by law. The U.S. Constitution says a person must be born in the U.S. or naturalized. So a fetus isn't eligible. But that's still irrelevant, since a right to force another to act as host isn't a right of citizenship, either.

 

[BobG]

This is a good point, as I certainly consider a fetus to be a person, and to have certain inalienable rights. But the "pro-life" position is that a fetus has a special right that none of the rest of us have: the right to force another person to host them against their will. Those inalienable rights, even if a fetus is considered a person, do not include the right to force another person to act as host. As heartless as it sounds, a fetus exists parasitically, and requires a host to live. No person, fetus, baby, or adult, is entitled to force another person to host them.

One could argue that a baby after birth also requires a host, and that's true, but after birth, that host can be someone besides the mother, and we have plenty of volunteers.Eligibility for citizenship must necessarily be determined by law. The U.S. Constitution says a person must be born in the U.S. or naturalized. So a fetus isn't eligible. But that's still irrelevant, since a right to force another to act as host isn't a right of citizenship, either.

I don't subscribe to the idea that a fetus is a person with inalienable rights at the moment of conception (even if I can understand some reasons many people would). I think that would occur at the time human concsiousness occurs - something that would admittedly be hard to define as happening at some particular day of development. I'm not terribly unhappy with the idea to allow early abortions.

None the less, no one forced the mother to act as a host. The very existence of a baby was a consequence of choices the parents made.

The argument that a fetus doesn't have the right to force another person to host them is really an argument that the mother should have the right to change her mind and undo the past after the fact. It has the same validity as saying a person should have the right to return their house back to the seller with no hit to their credit because the buyer couldn't have foreseen that the housing market would tank and leave them upside down on their mortgage; or to return their losing lottery ticket back to the 7-11 for a refund because they changed their minds.

Not that abortion should be banned in every case, but it's not a valid option for the majority of cases.