TPS Bond ..Send Prop.1 back to the drawing board

[sgrizzle]

Actually they are officially "The USA Patriots":
http://www.theusapatriots.com/

[Hoss]

Actually they are officially "The USA Patriots":
http://www.theusapatriots.com/

Wow, their logo looks like it should be on a baseball jersey.

[TURobY]

When I saw them waving a Christian flag aorund (which had ZERO to do with the bond measure) at that intersection, I immediately dismissed them. Having now looked at their site, I realize that I chose the right course of action.

[OurTulsa]

I didn't dig into their website but on the front page it clearly states they 'honor' family values, school, and education!?!  What does a more conservative plan look like to them?  If involved any form of TAX I suspect they'd oppose it. 

[rwarn17588]

Actually they are officially "The USA Patriots":
http://www.theusapatriots.com/

It's clear they're teabaggers. And, as the protest showed yesterday, teabaggers aren't known for logic.

[SXSW]

I didn't dig into their website but on the front page it clearly states they 'honor' family values, school, and education!?!  What does a more conservative plan look like to them?  If involved any form of TAX I suspect they'd oppose it.  

These people say they want good schools but then don't want to pay for the schools.  I'm just glad they represent a very small minority in our city as seen by the 73% that voted in favor of the bond issue and keeping property taxes at current levels, which in fact are lower than most surrounding suburban communities.  

[dbacks fan]

I didn't dig into their website but on the front page it clearly states they 'honor' family values, school, and education!?!  What does a more conservative plan look like to them?  If involved any form of TAX I suspect they'd oppose it. 

There really doesn't seem to be that much to dig into on there site. It either is a link to news media website, their store, how to join and the next tea party meetings, and the vote no on the bond info.

BTW "Institutionalizing 3 year olds" ?

[RecycleMichael]

I was amazed at how much TV time this small group of protestors got on this issue. I saw at least four different stories.

It looked like they only had about six people in their protest when the cameras were there. Are the local television stations that desperate to find controversy that they felt complelled to cover a carload of anti-taxers?

[TURobY]

I was amazed at how much TV time this small group of protestors got on this issue. I saw at least four different stories.

It looked like they only had about six people in their protest when the cameras were there. Are the local television stations that desperate to find controversy that they felt complelled to cover a carload of anti-taxers?

Six! That's a 33% increase from the four that I saw at around 10:30 in the morning. Watch out for their growing hordes. 

[dbacks fan]

I was amazed at how much TV time this small group of protestors got on this issue. I saw at least four different stories.

It looked like they only had about six people in their protest when the cameras were there. Are the local television stations that desperate to find controversy that they felt complelled to cover a carload of anti-taxers?

Bars and liquor stores are closed since it's election day, so it was a slow news day. Besides I'm willing to bet that they alerted the media that they were going to be there so they could record it and send it to Uncle Glenn.

[nathanm]

BTW "Institutionalizing 3 year olds" ?

I'm sure that's a reference to Head Start or some other early education program.

[sgrizzle]

From what I understand they were advocating pay-as-you-go over the bond with the Millions in bond fees, etc.

I talked to some people from the right who oppose the head start programs, so that may be what they are talking about. If 1 is liberal and 10 is conservative, they were probably about a 12.

[custosnox]

I talked to some people from the right who oppose the head start programs, so that may be what they are talking about. If 1 is liberal and 10 is conservative, they were probably about a 12.

As much as I hate to admit it, I found out the other night that my mother is of this group against head start.  Her reason why is because there is nothing that shows that these help out.  Not to mention the comment of "I don't remember anything that I learned from that early, can you?".  She didn't like it when I looked at her and asked if she could still read and write.

[YoungTulsan]

Some conservatives who are fighting for limited government don't understand what and why they are fighting for.  It boils down to them as all government is bad.

The problem with the FEDERAL government controlling everything is that it is too big, the scale is too corruptible, efficiency is lost through too much bureaucracy, and so on.   The limitations the founders (tried to) put on the FEDERAL government were in the interest of decentralized powers, that way no one entity grows so huge as to become out of control and unstoppable.

There are ultra-conservative viewpoints such as Ron Paul saying we should get rid of the Department of Education altogether.  This isn't to say, however, that we shouldn't have education and schools at all.  The issue is decentralized powers.  Some things do need management and governance.  It is merely an issue of "On what level?".  If you are against the federal level, you should want the local level to be STRONGER and not be parroting the same sentiment at your local community as you do towards Washington.

So here we have (had) a local school district bond issue.  We need schools.  Education is an investment into the community that benefits everyone.  It has economic benefits that far surpass the money spent so long as waste is kept in check.  What better level to handle things on than the local school district level?

[rwarn17588]

The problem with the FEDERAL government controlling everything is that it is too big, the scale is too corruptible, efficiency is lost through too much bureaucracy, and so on.   The limitations the founders (tried to) put on the FEDERAL government were in the interest of decentralized powers, that way no one entity grows so huge as to become out of control and unstoppable.

That's a good point, except that the founding fathers themselves tended not to follow their own advice. John Adams' Sedition Act centralized a lot of government power, and Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase sure as hell did the same thing.

I think the founding fathers liked the *idea* of decentralized power, but ultimately were pragmatic depending on the situation. I admit that if I were Jefferson and saw a huge chunk of undeveloped land for sale at a bargain-basement price, I'd sure as hell not be a purist about decentralized powers and turn the purchase down.

Also, the founding fathers were dealing with a nation that was just 13 colonies. I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be purists about decentralized power when it came to highways, water systems, power grid, etc., for a population of 300 million people.

And the argument about decentralized powers dissipates when you're talking about constitutional rights. The "state's rights" argument tended to be used a lot more, but turned into a joke over the obvious unfairness of slavery, racial discrimination, etc. You don't want power decentralized to a point where each state become its own fiefdom. We are the *United* States, after all. There has to be a point where each state, however sloppily, is lurching in the same direction.

It's a tricky balance, but I think we've done pretty well with that so far.