SIMI VALLEY - 4th of July Tea Party & Freedom Rally! (2010, insurance)

[DontDrinkGrapeFlavorAde]

Oh yeah - having soup for lunch and there's a fly in my soup, but for those who don't undertand figurative speech, there really isn't. BUT there is something foreign floating around shouldn't be there and there policies in government right not that shouldn't be there, that are not in the best interest for America as a whole, thus the rally and Tea Parties to make a stance as brave Patriots before us have done.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix

Nor do I expect it to be.
But me and millions of others are tired of senators, reps and the president not obeying the constitution; that is, they are breaking the law of this land.
This isn't just me, there are millions with my mindset that feel this way.
The term "tea party" is figurative, do not take it literally.
The media and many people denigrate the tea parties; they are fools, what would they prefer? Violent protest?

Benny, I so agree with you: the gathering are not violent like some protest: they are simply a group of individuals that feel they have been let down by their electied officials. And they are not all republicans by the way.

My husband with our son in law and his son in law will be part of a very large party in Dallas on the 4th of July. One of these 3 is a registered democrat.

Nita

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

My point still remains, and I think it's a good one: Where were the protests when the previous administration, in addition to wasting tax pay dollar, threw the constitution on a plate and defecated all over it? Cheney and Bush openly admit to not being consititutionalists and it was clear in policy that the President had ultimate power. Why weren't fiscal conservatives, aside from a small percentage of Ron Paul supporters, making any fuss about it then? That's where I say that these protests are entirely partisan and posturing.

We have got to get over this silly 2-party system.

and what system to you favor??

Nita

[majoun]

Originally Posted by nmnita

and what system to you favor??

Nita

Two party systems seem to be ubiquitous in common law countries, although the US and (currently) Australia seem to be the only ones which still strictly have two party systems with very week third parties.

A modified two party system with a third party large enough to have influence even if it's not large enough to have power would be an improvement. E.g. Britain (the Liberal Democrats, although it appears they'll be the main opposition party after the next election), Canada (the New Democratic Party), and formerly Australia (the Australian Democratic Party, now very weak).

Electoral fusion exists in other US states and might be a good alternative to the two party system:

"Fiorello LaGuardia, Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, are names that come readily to mind as candidates whose reputations and political careers were enhanced because they appeared on election ballots as fusion candidates." - John Paul Stevens

520 US 351 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party | Open Jurist

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by nmnita

and what system to you favor??

Nita

- The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves. They, in fact, believed that parties were a source of corruption and an impediment to the freedom of people to judge issues on their merits. It's no small wonder that they wouldn't have been too pleased when its American voters are found judging issues based on their growing concern for a politician's personal opinion about what people do behind closed-doors instead of where their country is headed. The 2000 election? Two parties with two candidates with little need to tackle real issues based on a constituency which focused most on gay marriage, abortion, and guns - three issues which doesn't affect everyone and doesn't affect the universal good of the United States.

These types of riffs begin easily when you only have two parties competing for the votes of the rest of the country. What happens very quickly is that democracy turns into a giant smeer campaign and little good is concieved.

It wasn't my intention to slam people who are attempting to take a stand. I didn't slam those 'liberals' who rallied against an unjust war and a stomping among the Constitution under the previous administration, but I know many who did... and now those same constituents are fundraising these political rallies. Don't think it has anything to do with party affiliation or posturing for the 2012 election? Of course it does, and so did the democratic-ones before it. And so we're the rallies where countless Americans were horrified that a man received a $%^ job in the oval office. It's all very, very sad how far off we are from where we once were.

From George Washington's farewell address:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

....Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by majoun

Two party systems seem to be ubiquitous in common law countries, although the US and (currently) Australia seem to be the only ones which still strictly have two party systems with very week third parties.

A modified two party system with a third party large enough to have influence even if it's not large enough to have power would be an improvement. E.g. Britain (the Liberal Democrats, although it appears they'll be the main opposition party after the next election), Canada (the New Democratic Party), and formerly Australia (the Australian Democratic Party, now very weak).

Electoral fusion exists in other US states and might be a good alternative to the two party system:

"Fiorello LaGuardia, Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, are names that come readily to mind as candidates whose reputations and political careers were enhanced because they appeared on election ballots as fusion candidates." - John Paul Stevens

520 US 351 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party | Open Jurist

I guess my point is, it isn't going to happen in most of our life-times. I do, somewhat agree, but I also think or hope, anyway, most of are simply registered as one party or the other, but vote for the candidate that comes the closest to our views. Although I am a republican I vote for the candidate. I wish the libertarian party could make a deeper inpact, but they just seem to not be able to get off the ground. Do I agree with everything they stand for? Of course not, I don't agree with everything anyone stands for, including my husband, but I do believe they have the right idea in many things.

NIta

[majoun]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I guess my point is, it isn't going to happen in most of our life-times. I do, somewhat agree, but I also think or hope, anyway, most of are simply registered as one party or the other, but vote for the candidate that comes the closest to our views. Although I am a republican I vote for the candidate. I wish the libertarian party could make a deeper inpact, but they just seem to not be able to get off the ground. Do I agree with everything they stand for? Of course not, I don't agree with everything anyone stands for, including my husband, but I do believe they have the right idea in many things.

NIta

If Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party had gone the other way, third parties would have gained more strength nationwide through fusion, as that would have meant that anti-fusion laws would have been unconstitutional.

Unfortunately William Rehnquist in his majority opinion decided to leave such laws alone because their absence would have been a threat to the two party system. (Bravo to Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg for dissenting.)

You were around, Nita, when California had cross-filing ; I know it got a bad rep especially amongst Democrats, due to CA being a heavily Republican state back then and incidents like Richard Nixon winning a Dem primary because of his being listed on Dem ballots as "Congressman" fooling Democratic voters as to his party affiliation. But it did keep both major parties in California in the political center. (Stevens' reference to Warren and Reagan refers to the old cross-filing system in CA, whereas his reference to La Guardia and FDR refers to electoral fusion being permitted then and now in NY.)

[vec101]

Not to intrude here but came across your post - thought you may be interested, in case you have not heard - the House is scheduled to vote on Cap & Trade this Friday. News just out a couple days ago.
You may want to get out calls etc to your Congress reps if you do not support Cap & Trade.
We are holding last minute rallies at some of the offices of our reps.

[Cyanna]

Wow, its amazing how much discussion has been generated over the mere posting of an upcoming event

I am a co-founder of the group hosting the event in Simi Valley, and I can state factually that our volunteers and members come from EVERY political affiliation, as well as diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. As I believe I made clear in the posting, we are a NON-PARTISAN organization who do not invite politicians from ANY party to be guest speakers.

As for me, I am not affiliated with any party because I prefer to be known simply as an AMERICAN who is concerned about the direction our country is going. I am a CONCERNED American who spent eight years living in England, gaining full, painful and personal experience with what its like to live in a socialistic country with horrific universal health care. I speak out because I do not wish fellow Americans to end up living in such a nightmare existence because they ignorantly seek something of which they have no personal experiences. The utopian ideals of a universal health system and a socialistic society might seem good on paper and in thought, but the reality of it is very ugly indeed.

I have 11 direct ancestors who fouhgt in the Revolutionary War and I am determined to exercise, protect and defend the Constitutional Rights they sacrificed for so that the rest of us could be free from tyranny.

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by Cyanna

Wow, its amazing how much discussion has been generated over the mere posting of an upcoming event

I am a co-founder of the group hosting the event in Simi Valley, and I can state factually that our volunteers and members come from EVERY political affiliation, as well as diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. As I believe I made clear in the posting, we are a NON-PARTISAN organization who do not invite politicians from ANY party to be guest speakers.

As for me, I am not affiliated with any party because I prefer to be known simply as an AMERICAN who is concerned about the direction our country is going. I am a CONCERNED American who spent eight years living in England, gaining full, painful and personal experience with what its like to live in a socialistic country with horrific universal health care. I speak out because I do not wish fellow Americans to end up living in such a nightmare existence because they ignorantly seek something of which they have no personal experiences. The utopian ideals of a universal health system and a socialistic society might seem good on paper and in thought, but the reality of it is very ugly indeed.

I have 11 direct ancestors who fouhgt in the Revolutionary War and I am determined to exercise, protect and defend the Constitutional Rights they sacrificed for so that the rest of us could be free from tyranny.

Cyanna, I think the discussion pretty much came to an end. So this is just for you, and I take the opportunity to speak with sort of a founder/volunteer like yourself as a neat experience and wish to be respectful and you not to be at all offended. I have a few questions for you, and if you want to PM me, go ahead.

1) Why didn't you start earlier? (or did you?) The signs of what is occuring right now in this country began not recently, not even under the Bush administration, but under Reagan in the mid 80's. As Americans, we've always had notions that you can have your cake and eat it too. It was, afterall, a tax by the British which led to the war you spoke about. Our financial ideals in this country are typically elementary at best - under Reagan, for instance, the idea that you can spend, spend, spend, and cut taxes proved to be system which cannot be sustained - even George Bush senior understood this as a misnomer. His son, however, did not. Why, when you saw that an administration with little understanding of economics, which helped exascerbate an ideal which did little good and alot of bad for our country, did you not organize these then? Forget the 80's, why not the early 00's? If you did, what types of events did you organize then?

2) You call yourself American and not republican, but I noticed your post was filled with no offense, a bit of propaghanda you get from the right. We're all Americans. Calling yourself an American has little do with anything of substance - I'm on too. But us being Americans alone doesn't solve differences in ideal because I bet we both think our ideas for the country's improvement are better than the other. So, let's be real. I had 3 uncles die in WWII -- you're no more American than anyone else and neither am I. It's time to talk real issues and not patriotism or a lack-there-of.

I'll get straight to the point about one issue you brought up: health care. Do you work or study in the medical field? What evidence do you have to say that healthcare would destroy this country? I don't have any myself, but I can bring about facts for you: 72% of healthcare in the United States is federally funded. I bet you didn't realize the number was that high - most people don't. Recently, however, $55 million men, women, and children were lacking health insurance. Many more millions are on the verge of completely losing their health coverage if something were to happen with their job. To socialize parts of the medical world is not at all destructive as you, it's a talking point by the right to ensure that nothing changes - no new taxes and more importantly, than many of their buddies don't lose revenue. You see, all it would take is a reworking of the medical field and the way money is filtered through a constancy of middle-men. I work in the medical field - I go through middle-men after middle-men everyday, in fact, I WORK for a middle-man. lol I'm part of the problem. My job really isn't necessary. I'm willing to stand up and say that private insurers pay enormous amounts of money wastefully when it doesn't have to be like this.

The real problem isn't the idea that federal money shouldn't go toward paying for medical coverage - in fact, it's a tragedy not to. You do realize we're the last industrialized nation not to do so, right? WHO ranks the U.S. behind Cuba in overall medical quality. It's actually an embarassment, Cyanna. Besides, 72% of our health coverage is already federally funded. So, no, universal health coverage isn't the enemy - the enemy is that the halves want nothing to do with being anywhere near the halve-nots. Under my proposed ideas, you filter out middle-men like me, you fund less for missles and more to cure our American people who are currently going into bankruptcy and debt because they broke their arm, or got cancer. You allow the rich to purchase, as they currently do, premium health insurance if they don't want to be anywhere near the disgusting people far beneath them societally, but overall, you stop the selfishness which pervades posts like yours, attempting to confuse people with rhetoric.

Sorry, if the last sentence comes off as being harsh, but if there's one thing I can't stand is when people attempt to discuss something they know about only from what they recently heard on the O'Reilly Factor. Study these issues before you begin to formulate an opinion on them. And no, a good source isn't Fox News or Clear Channel.