Out of the Mouths of Babes and Fools

[MisterGamut]

Run time: 03:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nkm392cco4   Posted on YouTube: November 26, 2011 By YouTube Member: gamutman Views on YouTube: 47   Posted on DU: November 26, 2011 By DU Member: MisterGamut Views on DU: 4041

 
What if the teabaggers were aware of the disconnect between their actions and their philosophy? This video demonstrates exactly that using the words of Judge Napolitano.

[90-percent]

1. Fantastic!

Our government has gone tyrannical. If the President does it, it's not illegal.

I don't understand the connection to the Judge? (I happen to like the Napolitano youtubes that are linked here at DU.)

-90% Jimmy

[ScottLand]

3. The connection is that Napolitano wrote the entire piece.

It's a column he published on November 21 entitled "What if the Constitution No Longer Applied?" and he couldn't be more right (or left). People forget that it's really not a matter of us against them. We do have more in common than we allow ourselves to believe. Believe it or not, we Liberals fear government taking over our lives as much as any tea bagger. We just don't express it the same way.

[MisterGamut]

5. Exactly.

I agreed with over 90% of what the article said. There were a few small points, like I don't care if the politicians spend more time in DC then in their home states. And I don't really see the state's rights issues as being particularly significant. But other than that, I'm down.

[AlbertCat]

9. We just don't express it the same way.

Yes... we try to understand what we're talking about, because we are not dismissive and detrimental toward a high brow education, and really try to look past things like race.

Teabaggers misspell signs about how the government needs to get away from their Social Security, and how Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim Hitler who goes to a white-hating church.

We DO express ourselves differently.

[ScottLand]

13. Well, I didn't want to say it, but it may be partly because

we do understand it better and the teabaggers are merely parroting the Faux News talking points. May seem as though I'm walking my original point back a little, but I still appreciate the fact that we all, left and right alike, are living in the same country and facing the same problems.

I was a little shocked not to see some blowback from the RW'ers to Napolitano's column though. A lot of it really reads like criticism of the Bush administration, as well it should, and I can't imagine how a teabagger would process it.

[PuppetGubment]

2. Divided we fall

i have talked to a few tea baggers and understand very well that they hold many of the same ideals as we do. the MSM portrays them as dumbed down crazy flag waving idiots. And many of them resent it! when people suddenly become politically aware for the first time in their lives, they follow what ever ideal polarizes them the most. they are US! we are THEM! we need to educate, not humiliate!

[Politicalboi]

6. We here have seem the grow

And they still have lots of learning to do. They portray themselves as jackasses because they are jackasses. I don't need the MSM to tell me something I can see for myself.

"the MSM portrays them as dumbed down crazy flag waving idiots".

That's because they are.:rofl:

Oh and welcome to DU


On edit, my college grad brother is a bagger. And gets insulted if I call him a teabagger, even though that's the first names these idiots gave THEMSELVES.

[Quantess]

7. I agree with what you are saying, but

if teabaggers don't want to be insulted, they should stay away from DU, because the insults just ain't gonna stop. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Charronxyz]

4. It's not so much the size of government...

It's not so much the size of government, it's who controls it, when banks and corporations own just about everything including "our" government you know that everything it does will serve the interest of the owners not the general interest. The two party system is a scam, the whole idea behind the good cop bad cop routine is to trust one and fear the other... we are given the illusion of choice so we willingly submit to the corporate agenda. What if both parties serves the interest of the one percent...

[Courtesy Flush]

8. He got a few things wrong, but

Over all he made good points.

He missed the whole part about corporations calling the shots in government. He still thinks they're separate entities.

[Bucky]

12. Did you see the SCOTUS photo?

[Courtesy Flush]

16. Maybe I misunderstood

I was under the impression that the audio was by a right winger, and the video was changed by someone to show how he was arguing both sides of the issues.

[MisterGamut]

18. You didn't misunderstand

That's exactly right.

[Moonwalk]

10. He missed a few other points too...like "by the people, for the people..."

The constitution is not and was not meant to be static and locked in amber. It was not meant to be the same forever and for always. It is by, for and of the people, and that means it changes with those people. It is a living organism, like our country. So to argue that the constitution has changed since the founding fathers' time is a big fat "DUH!" We're not a small nation of voting men with muskets, powdered wigs and slaves. We are a multi-cultural, modern, global power. And the one thing the constitution mandates is that we, THE PEOPLE, always have the right to fiddle and alter our government--both within our states and federally--to suit ourselves. Not to suit those who came before us however wise or hallowed.

In addition, the President has always been an elected monarch. There's a wonderful lecture about that on iTunes U ("The Founding Fathers and the American Monarchy" put out by Yale University under American History). Give it a listen and you'll find out that we've always had an elected monarchy. We just don't call him a "King" and, unlike in some monarchies, we get to decide who that monarch will be and what powers he will have.

What this fellow gets right is that, absolutely, the president was meant to be an equal to the other branches and has, in current power, outrageously surpassed that and yes, we should be worried because the one thing the founders didn't want was for the president to become a tyrant similar to what they saw in King George III. The question he ought to be asking is, if we are a democracy of, by and for the people, then WHO has been giving this monarchy more powers than he should have and why? THAT is where he'll begin to realize that his right-wing views are not so right-wing. If the Supreme Court is in the pocket of certain people, they can hand over move power to the president--and they have (like being allowed to torture). If congress is in the pocket of certain people, then again, certain powers the president shouldn't have, and wouldn't have, he will be given (like being allowed to wire-tap).

If the president has these powers, against our current version of the constitution and against what we want (never mind what the founders wanted) who is to blame and why? If, in war-mongering/revenge seeking mode (re: what we were willing to let George Bush do when he invaded Iraq) we hand over our liberties--or let our representatives hand them over, then we've no one but ourselves to blame. We have used our power of, by and for the people to undermine ourselves by handing our elected monarch more power than the founding fathers, or generations before us, or we ourselves would or should have given him.

[Bucky]

11. I love this video, but I didn't see any babes.

I was promised babes, dammit. Someone show me some babes!

PS, K&R :dem:

[tblue37]

14. From an interview with Napolitano, conducted by Ralph Nader:

Napolitano: So what President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the Constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal.

Nader: What's the sanction for President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

Napolitano: There's been no sanction except what history will say about them.

Nader: What should be the sanctions?

Napolitano: They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants <emphasis added>. I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It's a moral crime.

Oh, and here is the link if you want to read the rest of the article:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38320

And here is a link to the video of the interview the article quotes from:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/225457

[tblue37]

15. Here is a good comment posted on that article on _Crooks &Liars_.

"Libertarians and Progressives have long had common cause against Bushevic Fascism. If each could get passed the knee-jerk hatred of the other, this country would be much better off.

"Yes, there are plenty of disagreements between the two camps. Fundamental ones. But politics has always made strange bedfellows. When the strangers refuse to become bedfellows, their common enemy wins, in this case Creeping Authoritarianism."

[blackspade]

17. Interesting.

I'll be curious what my teabagger B-in-L has to say about this around the holidays.