Mutt x :
Am I the only one who thinks Greenrider likes to hear himself talk? Dude, too much philosophy can make you eloquent about nothing that matters. Or maybe your comments are too brilliant for me to understand. I certainly don't understand.
Perhaps you could watch the play Antigone?
And mysticminer, are you saying that when an elected representative is confronted with a vote they don't want to take they can just leave town? I think one would make their stand better with an on the record vote.
It's certainly got a long history of occurring. Why do you think they had to try to develop ways to deal with it? Have you seriously never heard of a call to the quorum before? You know what disappoints me most? The people who think something old is new because they never bothered to learn about it. That's just sad ignorance. But better? To simply lose a vote? No way. Getting things on the record is easier when there is time for it to rise to public attention. That's why there ARE filibusters in the US Senate. Because sometimes a vote isn't the way to get things done. Sometimes you have to find another way to speak out. There are also lots of delaying procedures in the House, just not the filibuster rule.
And in Wisconsin, they chose another time-honored method to get their message out. But you don't even know about the history.
Take the time to learn.
But this is also about respect, honor and conformity to the legislative method. When I play soccer, I can't just decide which rules of the game I want to play by. That would be chaos. So from now on any politician who doesn't like a vote, brought forth under the proper rules of order can just flee and prevent a vote?
From now on? Again, learn some historical perspective! It's nothing new. And there's a great difference in soccer or other sports and the legislature which actually makes laws and determines the course of events. I would say it's far more important to be willing to take a principled stand in politics than in sports. Not that there aren't examples even in sports of protests, whether it be refusing a medal, forfeiting a game, or just going home.
Look up the 1980 and 1984 Olympics for example. Look up Underarm bowling. Look up the 2005 US Grand Prix.
Sometimes you do say "that's wrong" and stand up for yourself. Maybe you're right to do so, maybe not, but that's a matter of the specific, not the general.
Yes, it does lead to some chaos. But you know what? Given a choice between chaos and unquestioning adherence to order...I'll risk a little chaos, from time to time.
See, you're going for an absolute, as if it would always be pure and complete chaos if the laws are disobeyed, but it's not. Sometimes respecting order is the way to do things. But not always.
Sometimes it isn't right. Don't believe me? Ask Thomas Jefferson. Heck, ask Jefferson Davis. I'd still say he chose the wrong course, but not because he chose to take a stand.
In this case, they chose to walk away for a few weeks to make their grievances known, to give things out to public notice. They didn't respond with violence, they didn't ignore their constituents.
They served them. Far better than you will ever dare to admit.
It's ironic is that TEA party people were labeled as "terrorist" for influencing politicians cut spending but politicians who shirk their responsibility and prevent other legally elected representatives from exercising their right to make laws are lauded as heroes?
"The only difference between a traitor and a patriot is your perspective"
"Why doth treason never prosper? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason!"
"Patriotism varies, from a noble devotion to a moral lunacy."
"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them — the desire to do right — is precisely the same."
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. "
"Gentlemen have talked a great deal of patriotism. A venerable word, when duly practised. But I am sorry to say that of late it has been so much hackneyed about that it is in danger of falling into disgrace. The very idea of true patriotism is lost, and the term has been prostituted to the very worst of purposes. "
Is that enough examples, or should I find more?
This isn't news to me. I'm sorry it is to you. There is always a tension between right and wrong, and it's often not very clear-cut. Sometimes the judgment depends on where one stands.
And your description of the Tea Party is not accurate from my perspective. From where I stand, the Tea Party doesn't actually want to serve the country. They just want to destroy programs they dislike out of spite, cutting spending is just an excuse, and a poor one, since they'll spend plenty elsewhere. At best, they're genuinely misinformed, at worst, they're pawns of a corporate conspiracy. Probably closer to the middle, a bit more in the hypocrisy wing.
But hey, I don't criticize them for using the Filibuster or whatever other parliamentary tricks they utilize. I criticize their reasons, not their methods. Or if I do criticize the methods, I do that on its own.
You focus on the methods of the people who disagree with you, but don't notice your own. That discredits you in my book. Especially given the likelihood of you changing your position if the shoe were on the other foot.
Feel free to prove me wrong, tell me you have opposed secret holds and filibusters, tell me where you went on record demanding a straight up or down vote...from the Right-wing obstructionists.
I will be duly impressed.
Thought FWIW, I don't call them terrorists, or traitors, or even Nazi's, fools, maybe, hypocrites for sure, some of them I will assert are racist bigots, but there's some language I do consider too loaded, and I would prefer it if EVERYBODY avoided it, from both sides. I did not like the descriptions of hostage taking used this week myself.
Feel free to call out your own on that too.
Almost forgot...a company was recently granted tax incentives to open a site. Without any further details, guess which party is opposing that deal.
Or is it too obvious from the form of the question?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram