Thursday, April 15, 2010

I Don't Remember Signing This

I offer a motion to strike the current text: "The American People;" and replace it with either "Some of the American People," or "Certain American People," or "These American People" and include an actual list of signatories.

I'm getting really sick of this cliche, so I'm going to break my reasons down real simple.

I'm damn sure I fit the definition of "An American Person." I'm certain I fall into this demographic category by meeting and exceeding the requirements defined by the United States Constitution. I was born here, raised here, live here, pay taxes here and believe that this is the greatest country on Earth. When I die, I have faith that my spirit goes somewhere else, but my body will be laid to rest in the red clay hills of Athens, Georgia within the boundaries of the United States of America.

But here I see that the Tea Partiers, some of them at least, have released a statement of principles, and signed the document - The American People.

Even though I'm in agreement with a few things found in the Contract From America document, I would not have signed such a document as currently under consideration.

I also move the record reflect my official call into question the validity of that signature.

I distinctly remember that, in November of 2008, some 66,862,039 American voters agreed on who would currently hold the office of President. From understanding the concept of "mathematics," I recognize that the number 66,862,039 is "more" than the number 58,319,442.

I'm damn sure the former is higher than the number 450,000 - which is the cited number of people who participated in drafting the Contract From America.

I find it disconcerting that 450,000 individuals would claim representation of an entire demographic group when it is a demonstrably provable fact that 66,862,039 individuals are on record as disagreeing with their position in whole or in part.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yeild the remainer of my time.

.

5 comments:

patsbrother said...

To whiney un-American liberals who complain about being excluded from all the reindeer games:

(1) If this is just a facade of hurt you put on, stop. It's gotten really, really old.

(2) If this is not a facade, and you really are somehow hurt by what others say, grow some balls.

/s/ The American People

Dante said...

"I distinctly remember that, in November of 2008, some 66,862,039 American voters agreed on who would currently hold the office of President. From understanding the concept of "mathematics," I recognize that the number 66,862,039 is "more" than the number 58,319,442."

Yeah, and Bush won the election before that. And Clinton before Bush. And that other Bush before Clinton. Things change. Attitudes change. Obama has every right to be President and he very much earned it. But stop drinking your own Kool Aid. Obama's election had as much to do with perception as it did with reality. You damn well know this, Cousin "Idea of Obama vs. Reality of Obama" Pat. It's very possible for people to disagree with a politician they voted for. It happens all the time. It's an argument made out of weakness like original intent arguments. Yes, it's important, but if that's the best you have then your argument sucks.

Despite who voted for what candidate, you have to keep selling or you'll lose your audience, and it's possible Obama is losing his audience. You don't have any public record of who exactly disagrees with the Tea Partiers. Using Presidential election results is an intentionally disingenuous substitute on your part.

As far as this signing business goes, things signed as a group do not always reflect the opinions of everyone in the group. As a history major, you should also be damn well aware of that. I don't have poll numbers on this Tea Party business, but if it has support from 1/3 of the nation, it already has as much support as the Continental Congress had when it met. And they sure each acted like they represented the entire states they were signing for.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Rising in rebuttal to your commentary, I must say that I find the use of the cliche "the American People" distasteful and counterproductive to pragmatic government in almost any case it is used as some sort of justification of policy. Historically, "the American People" have rarely agreed on items as a bloc.

In the specific example I have offered, this cliche is being used as a divisive political marketing tool.

This tool is being used to create an assumption that more people agree with the majority of that document than disagree with it, where there is simply little current evidence to back up that claim.

I am simply registering my membership within the demographic group described as "The American People" and expressing my dissent to many of the items contained therein. Words are important, that is why we use them.

If they can claim the American People are for it, I can submit an equally valid counterclaim that the American People are against it in whole or in part. Thus the demonstrably provable numbers which I have presented for the record.

Dante said...

"If they can claim the American People are for it, I can submit an equally valid counterclaim that the American People are against it in whole or in part. Thus the demonstrably provable numbers which I have presented for the record."

But that's just the point. Your numbers don't prove anything except for Obama's popularity in November 2008. To claim X number of people support or do not support a specific cause or set of issues because X number of people voted for specific candidate is just stupid, and I don't use that word lightly.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

I don't think this is stupid at all. There are few demonstrably provable ways we have in a representative democracy to guage the political will and beliefs of the majority of American people.

That is by looking at the results of their votes. Elections matter.

I trust those numbers with far greater credibility than I do the various polls and their sampling, or organizations who base their numbers on internet participation.

I'm not making a statement that voters' opinions and votes will never change. I'm not trying to convince people not to affect opinion by earnestly discussing policy.

I do question the sheer gall of those who attempt to influence others by attributing policy statements to "The American People" as a unified polity.

Yes, the numbers I present are less than two years old. But we will have a Constitutionally sanctioned referendum on these matters in just a few short months.

Those elections are likely to give us one of the only true statments that can be attributed to "The American People," and that is: "results are mixed."