I expect the Tea Party to start goose marching in the streets any time now.

Here then come.

Cellar bothers and sisters, I have reviewed this thread. It is time to speak.

You pretty much universally agree, Washington (except Glatt) is a mess - beyond redemption.

You know what must be done.

You are equipped, you are able. Some of you are already unemployed, so you'll have time.

Rise up! Rise up, American Dwellars! Seize back your country.


All tongue in cheek, of course, but half-seriously, I think the entire US executive could be replaced by US dwellars and congress replaced by votes from lurkers, and the US would be better off for it.

Oh and Bruce, those are the most plausible looking candidates I've seen yet.

The Republicans are screaming about "taking back our country" just like the Democrats did last Presidential cycle. That phrase creeps me out.

I'm pretty sure I'm just gonna move in with Zen. Zen, you have a couch, right?

Could you paraphrase, for those of us whose browsers just completely locked up after clicking this link and had to be ctrl-alt-deleted, twice in a row?

Few Texans Would Vote for Him
As people have been saying, Perry's not exactly popular in his home state (but, as he told Neil Cavuto last week, "a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown."). An independent poll released June 16 showed that only 9 percent of likely Republican voters in Texas would support him for president.

He Supported Al Gore in '88
When Perry first entered politics as a candidate for the Texas House in 1984, he was a Democrat. He remained a Democrat until he ran for Agriculture Commissioner in 1989, when he joined the Republican party. (In 1988, he not only endorsed Al Gore for president, he headed up his campaign in Texas.)

'Adios, MoFo'
His infamous catchphrase from 2005 later became a Texas Democratic campaign slogan: "Adios, MoFo." He had been referring to a reporter when he thought he was off-mic. (Or he knew he was still on-mic, and wanted to look like a bad-ass.)

Conspiracy Theory: He Backs Transnational Government
In 2007 -- way before all his anti-federal ranting -- Perry pushed hard for the Trans-Texas Corridor super highway, a.k.a. the "North American Union" under NAFTA. Conspiracy theorists in Texas (i.e. Alex Jones) accused him of trying to create a single nation consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., living under one currency, the Amero.

Sued Over HPV Vaccines
In 2007, he bypassed the Texas legislature and signed an executive order to require HPV vaccines for all 6th grade girls. It did not sit well with conservative Christians and a lawsuit was filed by a group of concerned parents. Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck, which created Gardisil, at the time. The legislature repealed his order.

Coyotegate

Border Cameras, Sanctuary Cities
In 2006, Perry proposed installing hundreds of night vision cameras along the border that would allow anyone to view it live online. During the regular legislative session this year, a bid to create sanctuary cities didn't pass, but Perry added them to the special session agenda. (Plus he has said he thinks Juarez is the most dangerous city "in America.")

He's Gotten More Religious
The governor has become increasingly Christian over the years, asking Texans to pray for rain and to join him in a Day of Prayer and Fasting to solve the nation's ills. It was sponsored by the American Family Association, which is known for its extreme anti-gay views.

He Pals Around with Palin
Sarah Palin endorsed him in the last gubernatorial campaign, making public appearances with him. It would be pretty great to see these two on the stage together. Ditto Rudy Giuliani.

He Didn't Blame BP for the Spill
Last year Perry called the BP oil spill an "act of God." (He considers many things "acts of God.")

He's Not Popular with W
Bush loyalists can't stand Perry. But that might be a good thing

Friends With Ted Nugent

A Nader Connection
Perry's top adviser Dave Carney was accused of helping collect signatures for the Ralph Nader campaign in order to help Republicans in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.

Thanks.

A friend of mine texted me today: "Also I'm pretty sure Rick Perry dyed his hair. Who does that slick faggot think he's fooling?" lol

Straight from the horse's mouth, although I don't know of this counts because the guy that texted this is originally from Oklahoma.

An interesting article. It lays out the contrasts between Perry and Obama pretty thoroughly and summarizes the the condition of Texas' health care, education, budget, ect.

*Sigh*
Teabag scum IMHO. If making the conditions for corporations favorable, allowed for favorable conditions for society, why would Texas have such a clear issue with poverty, education and lack of health care?

I see you are not a deep student of US political philosophies, Zen. Well, you're on the outside looking in and you're not majoring in US studies, so it's understandable. You've managed to confuse labels with working philosophies -- and frankly in US politics the labels of the Big Two aren't powerfully indicative of what they believe in, or indeed of any difference in what they believe in either.

For about the last thirty or forty years, the Big Two parties (and a two-party system is a natural result of winner-take-all Electoral College rules for the one duumvirate office it directly affects, the Presidency with the Vice Presidency) have implemented an enthusiasm for Great Big Government as the solution to most Federal-size problems, assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed problems. When both Democratic and Republican Parties contained a continuum from conservative to progressivist solons, they were about like the difference between one GM company's car and another GM company's car -- that is, not much.

This has in the last fifteen years or so become less the case, though this conversion is by no means complete or desired. The Democratic Party has become increasingly socialist in its ideas, and the Republicans, always inclined to be business sorts, rather more capitalistic than before. Some sorting by ideology has been going on.

Capitalism is associated with making deals, mutually beneficial exchanges. This is what naturally goes on between humans. It is altogether independent of government in its fundamentals.

Socialism is not, and hence requires the force of the State to cause socialist things and policies to happen. It is collectivist rather than giving the individual his due regard.

Socialism and Communism make a big deal out of "the collective," which they suppose to be a virtuous entity.

There is no such thing as "the collective." If human beings were involuntary telepaths, maybe there might be.

The Democratic side has increasingly set about buying votes by pandering, to this group, to that group, to anything they think is a bloc. It is not fundamentally different from Roman Senators pandering to the mob with promises of panem et circenses, and having to find inflationary measures to cover the bills for all that. The Republicans are generally less inclined to embarrass themselves so -- of late. So, yes, I am more impressed with the virtu and the virtues of the Republicans, for now.

It has gotten to the point where Democratic politicians hint very broadly, if induced to comment, that scandals that destroy Republican politicians only scuff Democrats up, because Democrats aren't expected to behave with propriety or integrity, or with character either. Isn't that just fucking peachy.

This is not to say Republican solons have not merrily gone along with the aggrandizement of the State and the enlargement of the public sector. They have done this very thing to feast out of the Federal pork barrel, as the American metaphor has had it since very early in the nineteenth century -- getting Federal goodies for the benefit of the home constituency. Yep, buying votes with the mob.

In the old days, the US Senate was supposed to be designed to be a set of representatives (small R here) not elected by the population as a whole, but by the Legislatures of the several States of the Union instead -- that the states' Senators were to more directly represent (and Federally empower) their respective State governments, every state on an equal footing regardless of population or economic strength. Just in case of the madness of crowds, was part of the original thinking. What with this and that, this seemed too oligopolistic and was eventually amended to having Senators chosen by direct election, serving rather lengthy terms of office of six years, compared to the House of Representatives' two-year terms. Previous to the relevant Amendment, the electorate's effect on choosing the two Senators of its state was indirect -- in voting for the State Legislators, choosing those who chose the Senators. But still the feature of one house of Congress (the entire Legislative Branch) being of equal representation by state while the other be of representation by population was retained even with the direct election of Senators.

A few pols and pundits wonder if perhaps this should not be reinstated. The idea has attracted more "Hm, that's interesting" than traction.

The Libertarian Party, a tiny US third party that is generally kept frozen out of national-level elections and hence does not make a great international ripple, is implacably opposed to the aggrandizement of the State and to the heavy taxation that fuels an aggrandized State. I find their arguments persuasive on the domestic front. I also find the Democratic Party to be the party most bitterly opposed to Libertarian ideas. The Republicans, while not a perfect fit, are considerably less so. Such opposition as Republicans have to Libertarian philosophies is weaker. The Libertarians are far too pacifist, apparently on the grounds that a Fed with a small army is a less expensive Fed -- I do not think they are being real about the way to safeguard US economic interests anywhere not run by a libertarian-minded democracy but by oligarchy instead. Only some oligarchies are comparatively benevolent; the common run are despotic, and all of America's serious foreign policy troubles come from undemocratic, despotically run societies.

The democratic societies run, well, variations upon the American model: free markets and representative government closely accountable for its behavior to the citizenry. Since WW2, they have found out for themselves that it works. It gets called the "American model" of an economy and a social order in the main because somebody somewhere had to do it first, and due regard should be given to how parts of Europe contained within their social thinking the seeds the flowered largely upon the North American continent. A China could not have come up with what we do. A France really couldn't, nor Holland or Belgium, and Spain quite simply didn't. It was an English thing, really.

NOW you're beginning to get it, Merc. Glad to see you're coming around!

Did anyone else notice the news blackout concerning Ron Paul?
See Stewart bit.

Yeh, I did. Apparently the media is deciding who should be considered for us.

My plan is to move off the grid, dig and big hole in the ground and buy more ammo. The rest of you are on your own.

Could you hit up Alec Baldwin for that unused plane ticket? It's not like he's going anywhere.

A Wishful Ad-Hominem Ad

And Gallup is saying, essentially, that merely eleven in a hundred Americans is willing to say "Obama In 2012." There's always some poor bastard that doesn't get the word, and a couple of them post here.