Rahm Emmanuel's new proposal for Chicago Public Schools

[turk]

Benton Harbor only aspires to be Detroit.

[ruckman101]

http://bloggingformichigan.com/tag/Joseph%20L.%20Harris

Money to be made, for Whirlpool.



neal

[ruckman101]

Where is the tea party outrage over this over-extension of government, dissolving local governments and appointing managers of the Governor's choice?


neal

[turk]

I'm not sure. I don't know what's going on there. It seems the Tea Party is catching on in Europe too. http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 83,00.html
Here's my question to you: is the Koch Bros behind this too?

[turk]

Now the trend spreads to Massachusetts? And the democrats? Is the Tea Party really that influential? Let me hear what the conspiracy theories are that explain this: http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-27/n ... ealth-care

[steve74baywin]

The Tea Party.
Years back when Ron Paul was running before 2008 I saw the start of the Tea Party.
At first it was sort of a protest amongst those knowing the income tax, Fed reserve and many other things were wrong in this system.
Later it seemed to have the criminal cartel infiltrate it. By the time the 2010 Election
came around, it was not what is was. For the 2010 election I saw many people and candidates speaking of the Tea Party, but I could quickly tell they didn't get it.
Like what happens many times past, I have heard great people speak of this, those in power who already have control of the major control centers hijack threatening movements.
Once the Tea Party started getting attention in the media and I saw some of the coverage of the group, and the picture being painted, I have been very, very suspect. I saw my X boss fall for a chump or two who claimed to be Tea Party candidates instead of the Libertarian one running in 2010 in FL. Now in office the way they vote is nothing like the original intent of the Tea Party, which was a mere name given to a protest stemming from the Ron Paul campaign and the Campaign for Liberty.

[turk]

Some people say it was all just a front group paid for by the Kochs and Dick Army. From what I remember, it started in 2009. Some financial analyst dude on MsNBC borrowed the word "Tea-Party" to describe how tax-paying citizens might push back against the idea of limitless government expansion into mortgage securities, encouraging a "moral hazard" whence bad behavior is rewarded. So, that was the general gist, as described by that dude Santelli. It actually caught on in subsequent months and snowballed into the phenomenon of the populist movement. Now, of course here are lots of negative associations, but overall, it's a good thing. How about the "True-Finns" in Europe? Uh-oh.

[steve74baywin]

Some people say it was all just a front group paid for by the Kochs and Dick Army. From what I remember, it started in 2009. Some financial analyst dude on MsNBC borrowed the word "Tea-Party" to describe how tax-paying citizens might push back against the idea of limitless government expansion into mortgage securities, encouraging a "moral hazard" whence bad behavior is rewarded. So, that was the general gist, as described by that dude Santelli. It actually caught on in subsequent months and snowballed into the phenomenon of the populist movement. Now, of course here are lots of negative associations, but overall, it's a good thing. How about the "True-Finns" in Europe? Uh-oh.

Those things you mention are probably a part of it, some more than others.
As an avid limited government Libertarian person that I am, I was really into Ron Paul, there were many of small innocent groups trying to spread the word, there were many people doing things to get him attention, their were money bombs for raising money, etc. One such thing centered around a protest and the name Tea Party was given to it, this was closely connected to a group called Campaign for Liberty started by a supporter of Ron Paul. Those who first liked that term where very close if not just like me in my views, Libertarian, limited government, abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS, bring the troops home. This was in mid 2007 before the Election. The movement kept going, but soon I saw what looked like some big name no back bone type republicans trying to weasel their way in. Next thing I know there are candidates claiming to be "Tea Party" Candidates.
Probably what happened is many Repubs saw what attracted many to Ron Paul, so they adjusted their costume to look like him. Part of that Freud polling and catering to the masses thing. Most people started to hear of the Tea Party before the 2010 election, when big money probably did hijack it. As usual, the originally intent gets changed by the illusionist. What the average person knows of and thinks of this movement is not how it started.

[RussellK]

Would that be the same "limited government" Ron Paul that makes the exception When it involves a woman's body?

[steve74baywin]

Would that be the same "limited government" Ron Paul that makes the exception When it involves a woman's body?

Nope, I never heard him make an exception when it comes to that.
I know I heard him say he thinks it is wrong.
I heard him say as a Doctor delivering thousands he thinks it is wrong, and I am almost
certain I also heard him say it is not an issue for the Federal Government, they have no business deciding that, it is a state issue.

[steve74baywin]

Would that be the same "limited government" Ron Paul that makes the exception When it involves a woman's body?

Nope, I never heard him make an exception when it comes to that.
I know I heard him say he thinks it is wrong.
I heard him say as a Doctor delivering thousands he thinks it is wrong, and I am almost
certain I also heard him say it is not an issue for the Federal Government, they have no business deciding that, it is a state issue.

I did some searching. I will make bold some things.
From his site.
"At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a women would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

Russel, that is a real good one to bring up.
Libertarians are for limited government, the few things we feel laws should be for are to prevent hurting and stealing from others. The abortion one hinges upon whether you think the unborn is a human yet or not. If it is then someone would be violating one of our very few laws, killing/hurting. But it depends upon such a great unanswered question. I agree with Ron Paul when he says it isn't a Federal Gov issue.
By default of the system we have that makes it a state issue.
I do not know what he would do if he was a state Legislator.
I would say it isn't a state issue either, it is up to whomever's body it is in.
I would never choose an abortion, I don't like playing GOD. I also wouldn't make a law making it illegal, I don't like playing GOD.

[chitwnvw]

Plus abortion is good for reducing crime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_ ... ime_effect

[turk]

[album]117[/album]

[RussellK]

Steve I'm not entering into any long debate on this. Ron Paul and his so called Sanctity of Life bill would have made it law that life began at conception effectively making all abortions illegal. That doesn't sound like a guy that doesn't think it's a federal issue.

[steve74baywin]

Steve I'm not entering into any long debate on this. Ron Paul and his so called Sanctity of Life bill would have made it law that life began at conception effectively making all abortions illegal. That doesn't sound like a guy that doesn't think it's a federal issue.

Yep, you picked the hardest worst issue to discuss. Especially if you don't want to get into it with me.
If you really want to know Ron Pauls thinking I will post a few things where he explains himself at the end.
Our views
Limit Government to protect human life.
First intelligent question would be, when does life start?
So Doctor Ron Paul who delivered 1000+ babies feels life starts in the womb, he feels the feds are limited except to protect lives. He sees where the FED thought they had jurisdiction and went and made the killing of those babies in the womb that his gov is suppose to protect legal.
Ron Paul feels he is protecting a life. When life starts needs to be defined.
This example almost to me shows why we need a limited Libertarian style of government. There are 1000's of opinions, how can we ever get along if we get to make laws on them.
Let's limit what we can make laws on or we will be playing politics forever.

I found this
"Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which asserts that life begins at conception and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the regulation of abortion. Isn't the first part of that inconsistent with the second? If the federal government has the power to define when life begins (and the "moment of conception" is less clear than it might seem at first blush), then it seems odd that the feds would have no role in its protection. Or slightly differently: If federalism is the issue, shouldn't the bill simply state that the feds have no say in abortion and leave it and the definition of when life begins up to individual states?"

And in his own words.
http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04 ... -abortion/

What I gather is this. He feels it is a human that needs the protection we set the government up for and seeing how the Fed Gov thought they could make it legal, he needed to do something.
It is not that difficult for me to understand. He is for sticking to what the constitution says government should do. Protecting Human life from being killed is one of the few things we set the gov up for.
He doesn't think abortion is covered under what they should do, but the gov made it legal to abort a fetus, he is saying it needs to be defined first, cause the gov can't choose who it allows to kill and when.