Tom Delay guilty of money laundering

[Smith]

HvyMtl, you continually look and cite surface rhetoric without seeing the depth and philosophy behind the curtain. One day when wisdom and reality peel back the layers of the onion you will realize that appearance is not reality. Seeing beyond the veil is the only way to fix the root problem. You keep describing and addressing symptoms as if they are the disease. Just becasue Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Amin ect. implimented socialist philosophy differently does not change the fact that they were indeed socialist/humanist/populist/ whatever you want to call it. The root philosophy was the same. Failing to realize the source will mean a continued support of people who will implemnt the same failed ideas of the past while calling it something new and so sucking the naive into their self destructive base. Obama and the Dems are no different. If you can't really step back and see how far we have travelled in the just the recdent past then you are fighting the very thing that will save you.

I don't care for politicians or the current systems, but I'll be damned if I'll support anything that furthers the leftist cause one iota. It's like an Aids patient celebrating some new druug that cures their pheunmonia, all the while the HIV virus is killing them in some other way. Cure the disease, not the symptoms.

As for Delay, again he is a picture of a coprrupt systme placing orrupt politics. You are willing to condem part and yet ignore the bigger problem. How is Delay a bigger problem than a corrupt judge, DA, and court systme that sets up a trial where every aspect is designed to have one purpose, destroy an enemy. Facts where never importnat in this case as there shouldn't have even been a case when you look at the facts.

[leroy]

I think there are some issues arising in the thread that need to be discussed further. I always like it when us regular folks think on important thoughts. HvyMtl appears to be making a couple of thought provoking points. They appear to be:

1. "Are we facilitating corruption and the status quo by voting for the lesser of two evils; and thereby facilitating the continuation of the "current corrupt state" and selling out our collective virtue by doing so?...."
   
2. "Has the Tea Party sold out by allowing some GOP'ers to hang on and be part of the process? After all; didnt we want to vote 'em all out?..."
   

RE: The first question. I believe that folks have long been "ruled against their will" by the " elite ruling class" (...both demorat and republican...). The majority of folks chose to tolerate a moderate amount of discomfort in hopes that it would somehow get better. That didn't happen; thats why we have seen the Tea Party become so popular. Folks simply got tired of what is going on. I think that is a good thing. It was a gradual process, pushed over the edge by the radicalism of the Demorat party, the election of a radical socialist as president, and a failure of the opposition party to do anything other than be polititians.

Why not take HvyMtls's purist point of view that postulates that the minute that a polititian does anything you dont like, throw him out! --- Which, by the way, I think is a great idea....? The answer, as great as it sounds and attractive as it is that; it's unworkable in our two party system. If you quit politics the minute a polititian does something you dont like, you wont stay active in politics too long. That becomes a problem over time, because when you quit, the more radical and base among us dont; and they eventually become the majority. That is exactly what has happened with the Demorats. Take a look at todays Demorat party; it is a far cry from the party of Harry Truman. Moral of this little dissertation. You can't afford to quit politics the minute a polititian does something you dont like.

Regarding the "collective virtue". Most polititians well know they can get away with a certain amount of "rascalism" if they dont offend too many of their constituents. The real polititians hone this ability to a fine art. If you are around politics very long using our two party system; you need to be prepared to be sold out and offended, because it will happen sooner or later. There aint no "collective virtue"; there is only "individual virtue". In my view, not voting is, in effect, pacifism; i dont see pacifism as a virtue. I liken it more to the old "...i'll take my ball and go home..." fit of the childish. It sounds pretty good, but doesnt work out in the long run; because the no counts always win with that option. The other solution is the "anarchist" solution; shoot or otherwise remove those you dont agree with. I see that one as a non starter too.

RE: The second question. "...the Tea Party has sold out because it allowed some GOP'ers to join its ranks. Let's throw 'em all out...". Make no mistake, i like the 'throw 'em all out" idea on a personal basis. I think it sends the right message. The Tea Party movement just doesnt have enough support to do that yet. I believe that it soon will have however. All polititians in the GOP have been sent a clear message for the most part. The message is "...we're watching, be careful what you do...."; and that's ok with me. I think that it is inevitable that some elements of the GOP will try to "push back", i just dont see 'em being very effective at it in the long run. Like i've said before; i believe that some of these GOP politicos (....like Karl Rove, for example...) better make up with the Tea Party, or they will find themselves suddenly unemployed. I think it's a bit early to say the Tea Party has "sold out". The Tea Party movement back toward smaller government and libertarian values is just getting started. It's beginning to clean up a mess that started with Woodrow Wilson in 1914. It will take a long time to straighten it up. I understand the frustration, though; i'd like to see it move faster myself.

RE: The Nazi analogy is a fair one. Not in detail, but in overall approach. The Nazis were authoritarian. So are the present crop of ruling elite Demorats and their enablers.

More like Stalin and the Soviets than the Germans.

And, by the way, ...No, the government aint going to turn this place into a captive state. We are still armed. They are, however, trying to make us poorer and working mightily to make us all serfs.

Libertarian Political Operative Leroy

(...still armed...)

Edited November 27, 2010 by leroy
spelling !!!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's exactly what it was, Hvymtl. The Tea Party

elected folks haven't been able to show what they

are, yet. We will find out in January. Until then, why

don't you cut them some slack? I'm certain they will

be held accountable if they err, because this party

(movement) is just getting started.

Thanks Leroy and Smith for explaining about NAZI's.

I knew I read my history right.

Some of you don't understand what the Tea Party

movement is about. I suggest you take a good look

in the mirror. The answer is the reflection, unless

you are a liberal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest HvyMtl]

"The root philosophy was the same." No. Not. Authoritarian? Hmm. So, you are making Obama out to be a tyrant in waiting? No. Not enough power. Remember, the Dems are more group oriented than sole person in charge. More Politburo with a token leader... Think Soviet Union, post Stalin.

Communistic and Socialistic comparisons are more proper than Nazi. Remember, the original Nazi movement (before corruption by Hitler) came from the right of center, not the left. I stand by my statement the Nazi and the Dem are not comrades. "More like Stalin and the Soviets than the Germans. " Is spot on.

So, look towards more socialists to get the right level - communism, correct. Socialism, correct. By hey, what do I know? Having a degree in Poli Sci.

Leroy, well thought out response. Enjoyable (not in a sarcastic way, but in the true meaning of the word.) Thought provoking.

True, the Tea Party does not have power enough, yet. However, allowing the GOP to control them is a key worry. The idea was to create, ironically, change, in how Washington is run. Core fundamental changes. Have the changes occurred? No. Not yet. But, will the Tea Party have the marathon strength necessary to create the change, has yet to be seen. My concern is they do not succeed, as they have shown to allow those, who are part of the problem, to gain control over them. So. Is the Tea Party going to be around in 2012 and beyond? Or will they merely be absorbed by the GOP, and their goals subverted, and their significance be a mere foot note to the 2010 elections? I think the GOP wants them to be. I think the Tea Party needs to strive to be more independent and focused on the goal of get those who do not listen, those who are corrupt, out of our politics.

Voting against Clement and "voting for the lesser of the two evils," points directly to the problem of the two party system. You still get an "evil."

And my point Washington is still corrupt, no matter the party, is also still true and valid. Even if it seems "surface rhetoric." Peeling the onion will not change the fact it is still an onion. Time to look towards finding some other vegetable, which does not bring us to tears...

As for seeing the GOP House continue, or even advance, investigations of corruption... We will see it if it happens. I am betting not.

Edited November 29, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Communism, Marxism and socialism are three different words for the same thing: Control.

They are all found in the same basic philosophy. It goes kind of like this:

From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs. When

the needs overcome the abilities, what happens then?

It ends up in chaos requiring control, one way or another. Either originally

considering the end result to be control, or starting without realizing the end

result still ends up the same. Control

You don't think Obama could be a tyrant in waiting? Why was Mussolini not

considered a tyrant? What about Hitler?

Mussolini and Obama had the most similarities during their childhoods. Both raised

by communist revolutionaries and well endoctrinated by their parents and circle

of friends. Mussolini had friends in high places in the US. He had a lot of people

fooled. Obama has been fooling people for a long time. The only glimpse into his

past he allows are those crappy books he supposedly wrote, but they give a little

detail into his ideology.

He is a Marxist, waiting for this country to collapse so he can remold it into his

image of what his ideal country will look like. And that will need absolute control

by his authority. I doubt if he will get his way, but I do see it in his comments of

record, and of the friends he keeps.

I don't have a poli-sci degree. Hey! What do I know?

[Oh Shoot]

... "voting for the lesser of the two evils," points directly to the problem of the two party system. You still get an "evil."

And my point Washington is still corrupt, no matter the party, is also still true and valid. Even if it seems "surface rhetoric." Peeling the onion will not change the fact it is still an onion. Time to look towards finding some other vegetable, which does not bring us to tears...

Exactly. And so I'll iterate one of my famous quotes, from one who knows what control is all about:

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

Dmitry Orlov

Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century

It's too late for either party to be substantially changed by its own elected members.

- OS

[Smith]

"The root philosophy was the same." No. Not. Authoritarian? Hmm. So, you are making Obama out to be a tyrant in waiting? No. Not enough power. Remember, the Dems are more group oriented than sole person in charge. More Politburo with a token leader... Think Soviet Union, post Stalin.

Communistic and Socialistic comparisons are more proper than Nazi. Remember, the original Nazi movement (before corruption by Hitler) came from the right of center, not the left. I stand by my statement the Nazi and the Dem are not comrades. "More like Stalin and the Soviets than the Germans. " Is spot on.

So, look towards more socialists to get the right level - communism, correct. Socialism, correct. By hey, what do I know? Having a degree in Poli Sci.

Socialism is the philosophical ideology behind the govenment implimentations of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, ect. Hitler was for expansive government, social cleanising, authoritarian central government, redistribution of wealth, government controlled industry, ... and on and on the list goes. The few similarities to conservatism it has pales in comparison to liberalsim. At to it the philosopies are the same and yes, indeed Nazism is progressive liberalsim with a nationalist bent. Sound like the Democrats yet? It is far from being anthing extreme conservative. I have degrees in Philosophy, History, and Theology for whatever that counts for.

[leroy]

HvyMtl and OS:________________

I think it's a pretty easy task to get others to join your opinons RE: Political corruption and change. We can all agree on that.

The question then becomes "...how will political change be effected that will restore the idealistic values of limited government, less corruption (...i dont believe you will ever remove it all, we are human. ...), return to the principles outlined in the Constitution (...without the nuanced baloney of 'tailoring" it as a "living document"...), capitalism, Individual responsibility (...for success or failure...), destruction of the "nanny state" and the "social hammock" in which the lazy rest, sensible foreign policy (...more akin to minding our own business, and less "protecting of "stratigic interests"...), retreat from socialist policies, etc -- on and on.

We've heard lots of opinion on "why we're concerned" and some "it wont work"; how do you think this should be handled? I aint tryin to beat either one of ya up; I genuinely interested in what you think should be done.

Remember, the election of Andrew Jackson:

Jackson ran for the Presidency in 1824, where he received more popular and electoral votes any of the other candidates. However, because he did not receive a majority of either the outcome of the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives who, in a surprising turn, awarded the office to John Quincy Adams. Feeling the election had been stolen from him, Jackson was not one to accept defeat, and he and his supporters began campaigning immediately. Thanks largely to his humble beginnings and reputation as a national hero, Jackson won the next election in 1828 by a substantial majority. He took office in 1829.

link here: Andrew Jackson Biography

Jackson's election was the direct result of folks getting mad about a bunch of "ruling elites" doing something they (... the voter...) didnt like. I think that is what is happening with the Tea Party today. Remember what the great Ambrose Bierce quipped: "....There are four boxes protecting the United States, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. ..."). We all need to hope and pray that the first two "boxes" work.

By the way: Smith's observations are "dead on". Here they are again:

....Socialism is the philosophical ideology behind the govenment implimentations of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, ect. Hitler was for expansive government, social cleanising, authoritarian central government, redistribution of wealth, government controlled industry, ... and on and on the list goes. The few similarities to conservatism it has pales in comparison to liberalsim. At to it the philosopies are the same and yes, indeed Nazism is progressive liberalsim with a nationalist bent. Sound like the Democrats yet? It is far from being anthing extreme conservative. I have degrees in Philosophy, History, and Theology for whatever that counts for. ...

The discussion of "what the present government is more like" is largely an academic exercise, and is largely irrevellant except to us political junkies. The fact is that the current "Nobama-Pelosi-Demorat" administration is authoritorian in nature, contemptuous of freedom, socialist leaning, anti-capitalist in nature, over-reaching into the private sector (...GM and health care to name two...), too cozy with the banking houses, over-regulating, ---on and on --- and more and more people dont like it. I count this 'Tea Party" and "voter revolt" a good thing --- its the first and second "boxes' that Bierce referred to in action.

Always remember this: ----The real important thing (...in my mind, at least...) is fixing what's wrong with the present crop of socialist trash currently in charge; by removing their majority and ultimately making them politically irrevelant. I think that is exactly what is happening with the Tea Party, increased Libertarianism, and the 2010 mid-terms. Let's hope (...and pray...) it continues.

Food for thought.

Leroy

Edited November 29, 2010 by leroy
added extra citations.

[Oh Shoot]

HvyMtl and OS:...

We've heard lots of opinion on "why we're concerned" and some "it wont work"; how do you think this should be handled? I aint tryin to beat either one of ya up; I genuinely interested in what you think should be done....

I get asked that from time to time.

I firmly believe that there is not time to turn the massive ship before it strikes the rocks, simple as that.

I'll spare you by not iterating the rest of the premise at this time.

- OS

[leroy]

....I get asked that from time to time.

I firmly believe that there is not time to turn the massive ship before it strikes the rocks, simple as that.

I'll spare you by not iterating the rest of the premise at this time.

- OS

I understand; and i understand why you think that. This nation has some very serious problems that need fixing. I hope and pray that they can be for our children and grand children; otherwise this country will not be fit to live in.

Thanks.

Leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I get asked that from time to time.

I firmly believe that there is not time to turn the massive ship before it strikes the rocks, simple as that.

I'll spare you by not iterating the rest of the premise at this time.

- OS

Aww, go ahead. We all need a reality check, don't we?

You know I keep on arguing it can be fixed, but I agree with your ideas, OS. There are too many

engrained country club types in the political system to get them out of the way in time. I can't believe

I just said that. I think it's because I'm high as a kite on cough syrup. Maybe when this crud leaves me

I'll get back to polyanna behaviour again.