Tea Party Alternative

Against US obstructionist politics? Check out this movement:

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

I'm not sure why someone sent me an invite to this group, or who the person was. I subscribe to the Cream Tea set.

Anyway, I see a lot of people who are fed up with hearing about the tea party movement. Here's an alternative for them.

I'm Labour Meself!   R.I.P. Michael Foot

Tea Parties!

There is all this talk in the US of the Tea Party movement.

I think a proper Devon Cream Tea is the way to go. In fact, I'm all for it.

I strongly suggest Hanson's, 2 Cathedral Close, Exeter EX1 1EZ (1392-276-913) for a nice Devon Cream tea. Sure, the place is full of grockles, but it's been around for ages. Lovely and quaint. Although, I've never personally eaten there.

If you can't, or won't, go to Exeter, you can always make your own cream tea. A traditional Devon cream tea is comprised of two scones, strawberry jam, clotted cream and a cup of tea.

Simply split the scones in half
Cover with a thick layer of strawberry jam.
Top with large spoonful of Devon cream
Serve on your best china plates.

It is important that the scones be warm (ideally, freshly baked), clotted cream (not whipped), and that the jam be strawberry (although raspberry jam is sometimes used as an alternative. Butter should never be included. Clotted cream is a bit like butter in consistency, which is why butter isn't served. The tea should be served with milk. Some people put the clotted cream on the scone first and top it with the jam. My personal favourite is put the jam on the scone and then clotted cream, but that's partly to do with the way I was brought up.

If it’s a summer afternoon then why not sit out in the garden and enjoy your cream tea.

Sadly all this clotted cream is not good for the waistline, however a little now and then is good for the soul.

Thanks to Microdot

Yeah, the argument style of the teabagger/guncretin: simplify, use emotional language, and not think.

It distracts people from realising that you don't have an idea of what you are saying.



Case in point: MikeyW trying to show me that Justice Stevens' dissent support an "individual right"

Mikey
Also, Justice Stevens dissenting opinion states in the very 1st sentence.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

#49 by Laci the Dog at January 20th, 2010

of course, you tell half truths and didn’t understand the dissent.

or didn’t read it.

Otherwise you wouldn’t misquote it.

“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”

” Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

It seems you’re wrong again, Mikey!

Next time try harder and actually read and understand what you quote.

Mikey then went on to say that Miller was all about the Shotgun. Wrongo Mikey. Mikey didn't really understand this from Miller:

OK, to use my post with the complete quotation and additional material from Stevens’ dissent in Heller, I’ve already shown that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Likewise, I will ask you what to tell me what was the holding in US v. Miller? It is actually quite surprising. (ed. The Holding was that the Court reversed the lower Court's decision that the Firearm WAS covered under the Second Amendment and remanded the case for reconsideration: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.")

I will actually give you some bits of dicta that prove you are wrong:

“Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.”

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Sounds pretty similar to what Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent.

Of course, Stevens' dissent supported an individual right, whatever that means.

I love John Oliver!

Another man working to the same agenda as I do!

John Oliver's New York Stand-Up Show Item	Friday 11pm / 10c
Stand-Up: John Oliver - Don't Ask, Don't Tell
www.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

Get in touch with me so we can work out our plans.