"The Anarchists Have Taken Over" -- The Idiocy Of Harry Reid...

[Beaudreaux]

Reid: 'Anarchists have taken over' in Congress (Video) - The Hill's Floor Action

?????

Reid (D-Nev.) said Tea Party Republicans are preventing progress on an energy efficiency bill by offering amendments on ObamaCare and other unrelated issues.

Senators offering amendments to a bill that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill?

Hey Harry, ever read the Defense Appropriations Bill? Or any other appropriations bill for that matter? Ever heard of PORK? The only difference Harry, is that you guys ADD costs to an appropriations bill, and these guys are trying to TAKE MONEY AWAY... Now Harry, I know that may sound strange, to spend less instead of more, but to say that "offering amendments on (any bill that are) other unrelated issues." shouldn't be a surprise.

Now Harry, surely you remember this little cherry you inserted into the Immigration Bill last year?

“CORPORATION FOR TRAVEL PROMOTION.—Sec- 9(d)(2)(B) of the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (22 U.S.C. 2131(d)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘For each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015,’’ and inserting ‘‘For each fiscal year after 2012.”

That little gem put $100,000,000.00 of Federal Dollars through the US Department of Commerce into free advertising for... wait for it... Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now Harry, what state is it again, that you represent in the US Senate????

(just more bull****)

 

[specklebang]

I did no such thing. That also likley occured entirely within your state. The better question is why no other demorat could successfully challenge him in the primary.

Sure. Blame it all on me. I can take it. Just call me Atlas (although I feel more like Sisyphus).

Reid is one of the most powerful men in Washington no matter how much you may despise him. Who could run against him? As it is NV is easy to ignore. Getting a newbie wouldn't be so great for us.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Sure. Blame it all on me. I can take it. Just call me Atlas (although I feel more like Sisyphus).

Reid is one of the most powerful men in Washington no matter how much you may despise him. Who could run against him? As it is NV is easy to ignore. Getting a newbie wouldn't be so great for us.

what also seems to help reid is the "none of the above" option of voting.

 

[specklebang]

what also seems to help reid is the "none of the above" option of voting.

Yeah, I voted for NOTA but it didn't win. I really despise Reid for reasons of my own but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Sharon Angle.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

“People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame.”~ Harry Reid

And this is what's going to kill the Tea party in the end. Anarchism does not work.

Seems like you and your buddy Reid don't even know what anarchism is, at least, not as a political philosophy.

 

[Fiddytree]

Anarchists, no. Intransigent? Yes.

 

[Bob N]

Seems like you and your buddy Reid don't even know what anarchism is, at least, not as a political philosophy.

Harry Reid believes in government; the Tea Party does not and that's anarchism.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Harry Reid believes in government; the Tea Party does not and that's anarchism.

Harry Reid is a partisan hack who has made a fortune because of his position...

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Harry Reid believes in government; the Tea Party does not and that's anarchism.

No it is not, at all. Anarchism is much more than that. It is "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." (The Emma Goldman Papers Curriculum: Definition of Anarchism)

Modern anarchist thought has gone beyond anti-statism into anti- racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny.

 

[Bob N]

No it is not, at all. Anarchism is much more than that. It is "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." (The Emma Goldman Papers Curriculum: Definition of Anarchism)

Modern anarchist thought has gone beyond anti-statism into anti- racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny.

I'm sorry but that sounds just like anarchy to me.

 

[Bob N]

Harry Reid is a partisan hack who has made a fortune because of his position...

You could say that about just anybody that has ever been in Congress. :lol:

 

[Fiddytree]

I'm sorry but that sounds just like anarchy to me.

Dramatic scale-back of national government programs, while embracing strong voter ID laws does not equate with denying the legitimacy of government period. Tea Partiers are guilty of throwing out pitiful slogans and antagonistic toward politics, but they aren't rejecting the existence of the State.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I'm sorry but that sounds just like anarchy to me.

You are not making a distinction between anarchy as in the dictionary definition and anarchy as in political thought.

 

[Bob N]

You are not making a distinction between anarchy as in the dictionary definition and anarchy as in political thought.

Well OK. Here's what I get when I look it up in the dictionary.

an·ar·chy (

n

r-k

)n. pl. an·ar·chies 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

---

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi

, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-[SUP]1[/SUP] + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]anarchy [ˈænəkɪ]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of political anarchism

 

[ChezC3]

Dramatic scale-back of national government programs, while embracing strong voter ID laws does not equate with denying the legitimacy of government period. Tea Partiers are guilty of throwing out pitiful slogans and antagonistic toward politics, but they aren't rejecting the existence of the State.

Strong voter ID laws are what legitimizes the government.

I think you've hit it on the nose, if this is your intent, but people seem to not realize that most people who support what the TP supports or are TP supporters (there is a difference) are advocates of scaling back National, that is Federal governmental programs. They want to see the scaling down of these programs to a more local, State, county, or municipal level.

 

[ChezC3]

Well OK. Here's what I get when I look it up in the dictionary.

That would be a gross mischaracterization...

 

[VanceMack]

Well OK. Here's what I get when I look it up in the dictionary.

PLease point to where Tea Party policiticians are opposing the existence of a government. And please demonstrate how they are doing ANYTHING different than what democrats do by introducing amendents into legislation to force showdowns.

 

[Fiddytree]

Strong voter ID laws are what legitimizes the government.

We will obviously disagree.

I think you've hit it on the nose, if this is your intent, but people seem to not realize that most people who support what the TP supports or are TP supporters (there is a difference) are advocates of scaling back National, that is Federal governmental programs. They want to see the scaling down of these programs to a more local, State, county, or municipal level.

To an extent, yes, however, it would be unwise to not see the same viewpoint trickle down at the state, county, or municipal level. Many states, including mine, are experiencing a slight Tea Party phase (God knows why we need them here of all places, but people like to do it I guess). I think what can happen at its worst is if there is a government, somewhere, funding some of these programs, the Tea Partiers in all zealousness start nipping away at it, regardless of the program's effectiveness.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Well OK. Here's what I get when I look it up in the dictionary.

Dictionaries aren't the most politically astute of materials.

When I look at the American Heritage Dictionary for anarchism it states the following: "the theory that all forms of government are oppressive and should be abolished." Once again, there is a difference between anarchy as a definition and a political philosophy.

 

[ChezC3]

To an extent, yes, however, it would be unwise to not see the same viewpoint trickle down at the state, county, or municipal level. Many states, including mine, are experiencing a slight Tea Party phase (God knows why we need them here of all places, but people like to do it I guess). I think what can happen at its worst is if there is a government, somewhere, funding some of these programs, the Tea Partiers in all zealousness start nipping away at it, regardless of the program's effectiveness.

Well, it is in the air. And at every level there is a whole ton of fat to be trimmed. An audit finding which programs provide the most service in the most economical manner need to stay and be improved upon. Those areas which are just money pits, are redundant or can be better handled privately need to be removed or relocated.

But I will agree that people do have a tendency to get carried away...

 

[Fiddytree]

Dictionaries aren't the most politically astute of materials.

Like anything else, they use source material, and then simplify that in one or two sentences. It's better to just get acquainted with the source material itself. Complex political ideas can rarely be explained in one sentence summations.

Even still, the dictionary definition is quite clear on what the result of anarchy is: no government. Bob, what Tea Partiers represent is not the absence of government, but their feeling of a limited government. We can argue it is too limited (and I argue as such all the time), but it is not the absence of government.

 

[Spriggs05]

You said that I didn't.

When?

 

[Bob N]

PLease point to where Tea Party policiticians are opposing the existence of a government. And please demonstrate how they are doing ANYTHING different than what democrats do by introducing amendents into legislation to force showdowns.

Tea Party: About Us

We took our stand, thousands joined, and then millions assembled across our beloved nation. Today, tens of millions of Patriot voices resonate in unison “We The People Rule!” In spite of ongoing hateful ridicule from socialists and leftists, we stood our post, day by day, month by month and now year in and year out. We will not stop.

This is a Republic and not a Democracy. The people do not rule; the people send elected representatives to Washington DC to speak for them. Now these people may get some things they want but most likely not everything - which is why this is a Republic. Anything else - including a complete Democracy - is anarchism.

 

[Bob N]

Bob, what Tea Partiers represent is not the absence of government, but their feeling of a limited government. We can argue it is too limited (and I argue as such all the time), but it is not the absence of government.

One of the things that bothers me Fiddytree is is how limited should this be? The Tea Party does not get in to details.

 

[Zyphlin]

Reid: 'Anarchists have taken over' in Congress (Video) - The Hill's Floor Action

Harry Reid showing he doesnt know what "anarchist" means