REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tea Party

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Monday, November 1, 2010 07:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1947
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:09 PM

DREAMTROVE


Just calling it as I see it. I'm not up for a political argument on a personal level, but I am up for a discussion on the topic, as far as politics, and I'm certainly open to any corrections of any errors I've made which I can put as edits to this post.



The Tea Party is a movement formed by Ron Paul on Guy Fawkes Day, 2007. After the end of the Ron Paul rEVOLution, this was what continued. He described it as his "big tent."

The death of the rEVOLution came as a result of discordant groups pushed for Paul to run as a a third party candidate. Paul said he would not do that because it would make an auto-win mandate for Obama, meaning that Obama would walk into the oval office whether the people won a single concession from him or not. (Which pretty much happened anyway.)

The result is this:

1. In the eyes of the media, the US and the world, the majority opinion is overwhelmingly likely to remain: Tea Party=libertarian, Libertarian=Tea Party.

2. The Tea Party is the peace movement of today. It's what the hippies would have been if they had been republicans, and their authoritarian hawkish opponents had been democrats.

3. There is no question that the Tea Party has been hijacked by some undesirable elements. Having some experience in this sort of thing, I can assure you that this is not always the liability that it seems: Hijackers can be converted to your cause.

It's my intention to sail into the somewhat hostile waters of the Tea Party and try to hold the banner of the Ron Paul Revolution and see if anyone salutes it.

Here are some dangers that I see:

4. The Tea Party has taken some unfortunate positions that carry anti-latino and anti-islamic overtones, and these are a liability to any libertarian cause. This should be about freedom for everyone, not just white christians.

5. There's a strong element of influence peddlers from the GOP to the corporate cronies that want their piece of the tea cake. They are hijackers, so they have money and power, but they're also possible donors of suicide platforms.

6. The partisan nature of Tea Party discussions, threatens its potential to control center board. All sides are equally to blame: The left for demonizing the Tea Party as either stupid or evil, and the right for claiming the Tea Party as their base, often while spouting ideologies which have little in common with their Tea Party constituents, and the Tea Party members for being dumb enough to support self appointed Tea Party leaders who don't really represent their point of view (Though, admittedly, this is no different than Democrats and Republicans, both of whom do this all the time.)

So why do it at all?

Because Tea Party is the only viable alternative I've seen since Reform that has any chance of getting into office which represents any chance of displacing the corporate duopoly of the two headed monster: The Democratic-Republican Party, aka, the Federalists.

Ideologically, the roots of the Tea Party are strongly based in a belief in individual liberty, and the roots of the major parties, in their current form (Jackson's Democrats and Lincoln's Republicans) are both rooted in massive abuse of government control.

Ergo, potentially, Tea Party=freedom and Dems/GOP=authoritarianism.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Just calling it as I see it. I'm not up for a political argument on a personal level, but I am up for a discussion on the topic, as far as politics, and I'm certainly open to any corrections of any errors I've made which I can put as edits to this post.



The Tea Party is a movement formed by Ron Paul on Guy Fawkes Day, 2007. After the end of the Ron Paul rEVOLution, this was what continued. He described it as his "big tent."

The death of the rEVOLution came as a result of discordant groups pushed for Paul to run as a a third party candidate. Paul said he would not do that because it would make an auto-win mandate for Obama, meaning that Obama would walk into the oval office whether the people won a single concession from him or not. (Which pretty much happened anyway.)

The result is this:

1. In the eyes of the media, the US and the world, the majority opinion is overwhelmingly likely to remain: Tea Party=libertarian, Libertarian=Tea Party.


I disagree. In the eyes of the media, the U.S., and the world, AND the political parties in this country:

Tea Party = Republican, and Republican = Tea Party.

Quote:

2. The Tea Party is the peace movement of today. It's what the hippies would have been if they had been republicans, and their authoritarian hawkish opponents had been democrats.


Let's see how many antiwar protests they've had, or will have. Judging by the "tea party" presence on this site, they don't seem exactly peaceful, or interested in cutting back the military.

Quote:

3. There is no question that the Tea Party has been hijacked by some undesirable elements. Having some experience in this sort of thing, I can assure you that this is not always the liability that it seems: Hijackers can be converted to your cause.


Stockholm Syndrome says that more often, the hijacked convert to identify with the hijackers.

Quote:

It's my intention to sail into the somewhat hostile waters of the Tea Party and try to hold the banner of the Ron Paul Revolution and see if anyone salutes it.


Best hope they don't mistake you for a MoveOn.org activist. ;)

Quote:

Here are some dangers that I see:

4. The Tea Party has taken some unfortunate positions that carry anti-latino and anti-islamic overtones, and these are a liability to any libertarian cause. This should be about freedom for everyone, not just white christians.


Yup. They've taken such positions, and when asked to divest themselves of same, they've entrenched those positions.

Quote:

5. There's a strong element of influence peddlers from the GOP to the corporate cronies that want their piece of the tea cake. They are hijackers, so they have money and power, but they're also possible donors of suicide platforms.

6. The partisan nature of Tea Party discussions, threatens its potential to control center board. All sides are equally to blame: The left for demonizing the Tea Party as either stupid or evil, and the right for claiming the Tea Party as their base, often while spouting ideologies which have little in common with their Tea Party constituents, and the Tea Party members for being dumb enough to support self appointed Tea Party leaders who don't really represent their point of view (Though, admittedly, this is no different than Democrats and Republicans, both of whom do this all the time.)


No argument here.

Quote:

So why do it at all?

Because Tea Party is the only viable alternative I've seen since Reform that has any chance of getting into office which represents any chance of displacing the corporate duopoly of the two headed monster: The Democratic-Republican Party, aka, the Federalists.

Ideologically, the roots of the Tea Party are strongly based in a belief in individual liberty, and the roots of the major parties, in their current form (Jackson's Democrats and Lincoln's Republicans) are both rooted in massive abuse of government control.

Ergo, potentially, Tea Party=freedom and Dems/GOP=authoritarianism.


Sorry, but from where I'm sitting, Tea Party = GOP = authoritarianism. I wish it were otherwise, and who knows - MAYBE there will be something positive to come out of some of these elections. But I have the distinct feeling that a few tea party-backed candidates are going to win, and they're going to go to Washington, get a taste of power, and instantly turn to running for re-election by selling out to the nearest lobbyist.

And Scott Brown says I'm right.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:45 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. In the eyes of the media, the US and the world, the majority opinion is overwhelmingly likely to remain: Tea Party=libertarian, Libertarian=Tea Party.
Yeah sorry DT. But are you high? It's beyond what Kwicko said - in the eyes of the world:

far far right of Repulicans = Tea Party

and vice versa

Quote:
2. The Tea Party is the peace movement of today.
What? Really? You must be high!

I have no doubt the Tea Party started as something different, but what it is is what it is. And what it is, right here and now, is guns and threats to make America their way, with no one else's beliefs allowed. Their is nothing peaceful about those Town Hall meetings, about threatening "2nd amendment time!", about taking over a woman's body, about trying to make Obama into Hitler, or about stepping on some woman's face.

The Tea Party has become the worst of the Bush presidency: if you're not with the TP, you're not an American as far as they're concerned. Convenient for them, because then they can say that all Americans want what they want. Oh yes they say that!

Yeah, hijackers may be to blame. But the hijackers are fully in control. That is reality DT.

I wanted to believe in the Paul phenomenon. But I have doubts as the elder and serious doubts as the younger. They both have problems incorporating reality into their realities.


Quote:
The left for demonizing the Tea Party as either stupid or evil,
If the Tea Party would just stop being stupid and evil, this would no longer be a problem.

Uh... or not as much of a problem. Politicians will always ride the weaknesses of their opponents. The TP just happens to have lots and lots and lots of blatant weaknesses to exploit. They really ought to look to that, but they can't as long as they keep pretending it's not real.


Quote:
Because Tea Party is the only viable alternative I've seen since Reform that has any chance of getting into office which represents any chance of displacing the corporate duopoly of the two headed monster: The Democratic-Republican Party, aka, the Federalists.
I think you're having a problem with your reality being missing. The TP is what it is. If you keep seeing nothing but the well-meant roots of the movement, rather than what it has become, you have only yourself to blame for bringing a monster into power.

ETA: Sorry DT, that was a much harsher post than I started out to write. I do see that you mean to turn the movement into something better, and I appreciate that. I'm just a little astounded at how easily you dismiss the thing that this movement has become. Intentions mean little to me as compared to actions, and the actions of the Tea Party are pretty damned hard to ignore.

Love it Kwicko - identifying with the hijackers. I think you got that right.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:02 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

1. I'm fairly sure I disagree with you. Authoritarianism is the opposite of Tea Party. I can only think that the "pure" anti-Tea Party sentiment is the result of a successful brainwashing propaganda campaign by the authoritarian police state. I'm not kidding.

2. OTOH, Skepticism of the Tea Party is definitely merited.

3. You're falling into a "they" trap. There is no unified voice of the Tea Party. If someone claims to represent the tea party opinion, and they're not it's founder, Dr. Paul, then they are some sort of fraud.

4. The Tea Party is a group of us. It's a bunch of people pretty much exactly like the FFF:RWED audience, the entire group, mixed into one: An anti-govt. libertarian front with no unified ideology and opinion.

5. I agree with you about Stockholm syndrome. I didn't say it was the inevitable outcome, I said it was possible to do. I watched it happen with the RPUSA. I was a hijacker myself, I wanted a split vote, I wanted Bush to lose. I didn't join because I believed strongly what they believed. They won me over on several of their positions, because they simply knew more about it than i did. None of this was left right stuff, it was all about process and influence, who had it, and how it was implemented, how it should be, and how to get from what it was to what it should be.

6. This is a one shot deal. We asked for revolution, and we got it. No second revolutionary front is going to magically appear. You can grab the bull by both horns and try to steer it to victory, or you can stand on the sidelines and cheer for the authoratocracy.

I'm not a fan of Tea Party rhetoric or the idea that we can just make a GOP makeover, I'm standing with Dr. Paul who said the revolution can't be exclusive, we need more voices, we need a left and a right, we need the people against the oppressors.

The Tea Party started out that way. What the GOP did was add members by adding Beck and Palin to it. Then the Democrats, instead of joining in, cowered in fear, because it was different.

Sorry, man, it's the truth.

The Kucinich left should have swarmed in and it still should, because I can *guarantee* you one thing: The DNC is *never* going to come forth and bow to the progressives and institute reforms that will bring about peace and economic prosperity, equality or equality of opportunity. They spin that line as they have for a century, and in that century they've given us endless war, debt and inequality, just like they did the century before.

So, is the GOP any better? Not lately. It's dubious if it's ever been much better, but supporting the GOP to victory isn't going to do a damn thing for anyone.

What we need to do is replace the current democrats and republicans with more independent minded people.

7. Okay, the Tea Party candidates aren't those people. But all it took to be a Tea Party candidate was just say "I'm a Tea Party candidate." Technically, you need the endorsement of no group, and not one Tea Party vote. But you can probably buy those endorsements, and you can probably rally a few dodos to vote for you. My point is, the revolution hasn't really forwarded a candidate yet, these people are opportunists, I'm not taking them seriously.

8. So the GOP wants you to buy that they own the Tea Party. Here's why:

The Tea Party started out as a group of libertarians, the Ron Paul Revolution, and that group was about 60/40 republican, and about 10 million or so people, and that meant about 4 million democrats. The GOP wanted to roll all of those people back into the GOP.

The last thing they wanted was for 6 million republicans to go third party.

However, the GOP is a bunch of fuck ups. They took on moronic positions that alienated most of the left-Ron Paul crowd, and so they're sucking in only a slight majority. But, it's still a majority.

By granting them that ownership, you are giving them both the majority, and the moral high ground on liberty. Libertarian becomes a purely republican position.

Here's my alternative:

Take Ron's advice: Make it by partisan. Stop the hate, and get back to what we all agree. Re-hijack the tea party. Talk to those #s of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck people who joined, and teach then what's important. Don't confront them on their small mindedness, just ask them to shut up on the topic, because they're discrediting themselves, and the Ron Paul message.

You'd be surprised. These people are not stupid, and they're not evil. They actually are very new to politics. They believe a lot of hogwash because they've just been told it. They don't really know how govt. works. They're just keenly aware that they are not in control of their destiny, and that their govt. does not represent their interests.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out: Any interaction they have with the govt. is likely to be like a boot stamping on their face. They're pretty sure that they didn't vote for that.

But while they're learning the ropes, there are other important issues to deal with:

Paul says the Tea Party should run in Dem Primaries. It should. Double the chances. Also, bring in some new members. They need new ideas.

But there have to be some ground rules. The Reform Party learned this the hard way. Certain topics are off the table:

Roe v. Wade. Sure, everyone has an opinion on it, some could write a book on it, but no one is about to convince anyone, all you will do is waste everyone's time, including your own.

etc.

Pretty soon, you're down to talking about what really needs to be talked about: Reform.

Reform's mistake was to be a third party. The GOP had it destroyed.

Being an insurgency within the GOP is a good idea, but being an insurgency within both parties is a much better one.

After all, that's how the neocons came to power.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mal,

You're missing the point. This is not about wedge issues.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:08 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mal,

You're missing the point. This is not about wedge issues.

So I'm supposed to ignore what the Tea Party is actually doing in favor of what you wish they were doing?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


DT: You're missing the point. It's ALWAYS about wedge issues. That's why they're called "wedge issues", because they're designed to drive a wedge between people and groups. You can say it's not about that, but it is, and pretty much always has been.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:42 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


I don't believe DT is trying to win an election or argue for one of the self proclaimed Tea party leaders as much as argue political ideology. As has been said many times, there are nut-jobs throughout the political, social, ideological, economical, religical, and grammatical spectrum.

I'm very curious as to the Tea Party's side of things. All I ever hear about it is rather harsh and comes from Liberals and Republicans who seem to feel threatened. I'm sure there's more to the Tea Party than retaining guns and trying to prevent me from masturbating. If all our ideologies are going to be ruined by the popular morons we elect anyway, we might as well at least pick the ideals that best suit us right? 'Sides, we're still allowed to vote outside of our parties.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:54 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

No, it's not. The political issues discussed by candidates are not policy. That's what wedge issues are, they're talking points. Politicians do it just as readily as the Media does. It's whereever they think the ball is on the moment on how to split the population into two groups where one is slightly larger than the other.

Happy Trader,

Thanks. So far from what I've seen there are a number of issues that relate to the real abuses of govt. power and their sources. One of the guys there had a great site that listed the issues, not all of which I agreed with, but they were about 90% what I would call personal sovereignty against govt. and corporate power. There were some I disagreed with, immigration etc. but the guy took it down.

Also, there were more black people there than I expected. And people were no fans of George W. Bush. In fact, the most common complaint I heard about Obama was "He's too much like Bush"

I'll try to dig up that list, but in the meantime, for those who missed it during the campaign, I'll leave you with this:


"My administration will represent no real policy change over that of George W. Bush" - Barack Obama, July 19th, 2008, interview with Lara Logan in Afghanistan.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:44 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, I agree with some of what you said. Except that I think that you are giving too much credit to the Tea Party as representing libertarian viewpoints(which are NOT the Tea Party); more I believe the Tea Party is a misguided co-opting of the Libertarian title.

1. I think by now the world has pretty much grasped (from what they’ve heard and seen) that the Tea Party = right-wing Republicans, and Republicans trying to bring them under their wing.

2. The LIBERTARIAN Party would be the “peace movement” of today, if there was such a thing. The Tea Party isn’t libertarian in my opinion; if they were, why the push for government in religion, deciding no abortions, the virulent hate and exhortations toward violence on their signs, in their rhetoric?

3. I agree that the hijackers are more likely to influence the existing party or cause. How you can think otherwise mystifies me, given the intense effect the Tea Party has had on the GOP and how moderate Republicans are trying to sound more extreme and/or are being purged from the party.

4. I agree; one reason I abhor them. They represent the worst of Conservatism to me, especially on social issues, and don’t represent at all what I’ve learned the original Libertarian views.

5. I agree wholeheartedly.

6. You kinda contradicted yourself on that one. To say
Quote:
The left for demonizing the Tea Party as either stupid or evil
and then
Quote:
Tea Party members for being dumb enough to ...
rather intimates that the left was right, doesn’t it?

I disagree with
Quote:
The Tea Party is a group of us. It's a bunch of people pretty much exactly like the FFF:RWED audience, the entire group, mixed into one: An anti-govt. libertarian front with no unified ideology and opinion
I think there is quite a unified ideology, at least by those speaking publicly. It involves abortion, gun rights, anti-left, and numerous other things which are pretty standard in Tea Party rallies and speeches.

Why on earth would I want to grab THIS bull by the horns? I don’t believe it could be “steered” by anyone but Fox News and to a lesser degree the GOP, which are doing a pretty good job as it is. Give me a VIABLE alternative to TPTB, hell, I’ll vote for it in a second, in the hopes it will grow, rather than die, if it got enough power. But what the Tea Party represents is virtually everything I think is abhorrent about mob mentality AND authoritarianism...authoritarianim definitely does not represent the original libertarian values, I fully agree, but the Tea Party shows a STRONG bent toward it.

How can you back the Tea Party when you say they need different voices, a left and a right? There is NO left in the Tea Party whatsoever, no desire for equality, only “screw the have nots”, a desire to continue the right’s long-standing desire to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and other safety nets which benefit ALL Americans, and much more which are the antithesis of liberal viewpoints. They need to be inclusive; they are getting less and less so every day.
Quote:
Technically, you need the endorsement of no group, and not one Tea Party vote
No, you don’t, but by declaring yourself a Tea Party candidate, you get tons of votes because it’s the magic word that brings people out of the shadows, ANYONE angry or frightened enough to FEEL (not think) “anything’s better than the status quo”. That’s where the energy of the Tea Party came from, not libertarians, and it’s what drives them and gives them their power.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Love it Kwicko - identifying with the hijackers. I think you got that right.


I hope you realize if that's true, then there's some pretty scary consequences vis-a-vis the 1960s Students for a Democratic Society and the Civil Rights Movements.

Which it is. True, I mean.

Yeah, I think that whatever potential the tea party had under Ron Paul (and whatever Ron Paul is, he's at least honest and stands by his principles like less military spending. His son doesn't), it's been completely subverted by the republican party. I have doubts anyone would be able to kick out the controlling interests that are now entrenched and welcome in the party, so the capacity for change has been converted into another means to preserve the status quo.

I wish it were different, because DT's right in that there is potential at least in the numbers and the stated desire to change. Unfortunately, it's rather like what happened with Obama, Obama got assigned a bunch of agenda-driven nutcases to control him. Any candidate who came out of the tea party is now likely to be the same.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:39 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
7. Okay, the Tea Party candidates aren't those people. But all it took to be a Tea Party candidate was just say "I'm a Tea Party candidate." Technically, you need the endorsement of no group, and not one Tea Party vote. But you can probably buy those endorsements, and you can probably rally a few dodos to vote for you. My point is, the revolution hasn't really forwarded a candidate yet, these people are opportunists, I'm not taking them seriously.


If that's true, THEn you might have a chance.

Still, you know there's all that money pouring in from Rupert Murdoch. I think you're right to a degree, we have a group here that says they want what we want, but I don't know how you'd get them to abandon the infiltrated messages since Beck and Palin got in. The average tea party messengers are susceptible to those messages, because they're sugar coated in patriotism.

If you stand up and say different, they've now been conditioned to brand you as unpatriotic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:51 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I expect the Tea Party will go away.
I expect the Republican Party will go away.

I predict a merger of both into the re-formulated ..........Conservative Party.

Yep, the Conservative Party!! It's the only thing that makes any sense. The "old" labels of Republican and Democrat really don't work or mean anything anymore. Every single thing in America always breaks down to Liberal or Conservative, so let's stop the outdated euphemisms and line up under the banner we truly support.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:57 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

6. You kinda contradicted yourself on that one. To say "The left for demonizing the Tea Party as either stupid or evil" and then "Tea Party members for being dumb enough to ..." rather intimates that the left was right, doesn’t it?


That's not a contradiction, that was an accurate assessment of reality. You call someone dumb and stupid, they become defensive, you lose them. With no one else to listen to, they'll flock to whatever demogogues are out there spewing flattery.

Quote:
Why on earth would I want to grab THIS bull by the horns? I don’t believe it could be “steered” by anyone but Fox News and to a lesser degree the GOP, which are doing a pretty good job as it is. Give me a VIABLE alternative to TPTB, hell, I’ll vote for it in a second, in the hopes it will grow, rather than die, if it got enough power. But what the Tea Party represents is virtually everything I think is abhorrent about mob mentality AND authoritarianism...authoritarianim definitely does not represent the original libertarian values, I fully agree, but the Tea Party shows a STRONG bent toward it.


Like it or not, they represent change in that they clearly have some potential power to shift some numbers in congress. You on the left would be on the losing side of this; why WOULDN'T you want to influence them somewhat?

Quote:
There is NO left in the Tea Party whatsoever


No kidding, that's what he's complaining about. How can there BE a left wing voice in the tea party if you all run away from it?

I gotta say, DT is winning me over here. The tea party may yet be salvageable, and return to the anti-government message it was. At the same time, the left can provide some much needed ideas about supporting small local business as opposed to corporatism, which drives special interest and corruption. The left could also introduce sustainability and renewability.

Quote:
How can you back the Tea Party when you say they need different voices, a left and a right?


Because he's not talking about backing the tea-party as a neo-con haven. He's saying we need to jump in and create a big tent that is no longer about wedge issues like religion, race, immigration, abortion, or homosexuality.

Tea party or not, a small government revolution in the Democrats would be excellent. There would be your more secular option, your contributors with a history of protesting for peace.

Hmm. DT, if you can't grab the tea party out from the Republicans, that might be something to think about. Starting a parallel revolution in the democrats. The Democrat voters are arguably about as pissed off as the tea party at TPTB (albeit less gun happy), but the problem is that the tea party is reuniting them under the same banner, which will preserve the status quo. They need to start taking their own masters and corruption to task.

Later on... The two revolutions merge.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:42 AM

DREAMTROVE


Niki

0: The tea party, as it was created in 11.05.07 was solidly libertarian. I'll grant that it has attracted an increasingly ignorant audience, but it's not really attracting authoritarians or anyone other than libertarians. Even Beck is a libertarian, such as he is.

1: The Tea Party is moderate right, if anything.

2: The Libertarian party fronts some good people, but it has no electability. They're not the peace movement. The peace movement has two forms of protesters today:

a) The G20/WTO anti-globalists
b) The ron paul revolution

Both these elements are present in the tea party and absent from the rest of mainstream politics.

Ethnic intolerance by the tea party members is a sign of ignorance. As are wedge issues. I haven't seen a lot of wedge issues coming out of the tea party though, not as much as I see coming out of the opponents. Some of the Tea Party candidates, who I think are a pretty opportunistic bunch, have supported a wedge issue or two. Abortion is a wedge issue. I haven't heard it mentioned yet as a tea party platform at the local tea party, but the more republicans that come in, the more likely it is to happen. It's still out of place on either side of the debate.


3: How I can think otherwise is easy: I know. I used to work for the RPUSA. 100,000 reformers gained 1 million far right republicans as members, and the final result was one million centrist reformers. The reason was the reformers were more informed. Sure, there was an interim period where the party was a far right party, but over time, cooler heads prevailed. I expect history to repeat itself, but I'm also willing to lend it a hand.

4: I wasn't aware there was a tea party position on social issues.

5: I've lost track with where we are.

6: You got me there. Okay, they are attracting a large number of the uninformed. But they still compare favorably to major parties in this aspect.

Quote:
I think there is quite a unified ideology


Really?!??!?

I've seen no evidence of this. In fact, at the outset, Dr. Paul said that they were not, and since then, they've become even more disparate of opinion.

If by "publicly" you mean "FOX News" then yeah, Fox has a fairly one sided view of things.

...

Niki,

I'm honestly surprised, I'd have pegged you for more of a loyal democrat.If you want a viable alternative, I suspect this is the only one you're going to get. And sure, someone other than Fox or the GOP can steer this, Ron Paul did it for a year all by himself. Fox owns it now because they have no serious competition.

The Dem and Rep parties are controlled by corporate america, I don't think we're ever getting those back.

IMHO

The Tea Party has shown far less tendency to support authoritarian ideals than the Democrats and other (neocon) Republicans. It's still a freedom movement in its infancy.

Is it possible that it could go from enlightment to reign of terror? Sure. But you're sort of giving up on the baby before it's learned to walk.

As for supporting something you disagree with.., Did you ever vote for a Democrat while having disagreements with the party leadership on Foreign policy? Do you think some people here might have voted republican even though they didn't like the Fiscal policy? Have I not said several times on this forum that I firmly support Israel while not supporting their treatment of Gaza?

No one is ever going to agree with me 100% unless they're me. It's not my goal to make them. Ron Paul said "The Tea Party needs a left" last month, it had a left initially, and divisive elements from both sides, with Fox News and the Huffington Post pushing all they could, they pulled most of the left out and pushed new right in. But that doesn't mean that there is a strong ideological change amount the thinkers in the group, or the origins, or the people and ideals to whom the group looks up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:46 AM

DREAMTROVE


Byte

You make good points, but you might be underestimating Murdoch. He's largely the force behind Cameron as well as Bush. Murdoch is not himself a neocon, he's a conservative. He'll accept a different kind of conservative to support. If we can get a candidate like David Cameron, I think we can get his support on that.

Here's a thought: If Chafee wins the RI gov. he could, down the road, become just that sort of candidate.

Oh, and if he doesn't follow us all the way, at some point, someone else will.




Jongg

Oh, how I wish you were right. But alas, america isn't much for change. Still we can hope

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:22 AM

BYTEMITE


DT: Hmm, I have doubts about Murdoch in that sense. It's when Murdoch, Beck, and Palin jumped into the tea party that we started to move away from the idea of less government spending (or at least much less than Paul was advocating).

You said you suspect Murdoch thinks there's a global left wing conspiracy he wants to defeat, he and Glen Beck and Sarah Palin start talking up military spending in the middle of decreased government spending... I'm pretty sure that makes Murdoch a neocon, at least in the loosest sense of the idea. I also think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin aren't so much libertarians as they are money-tarians.

But, we could take advantage of an apparent trust for conservatism to get Murdoch to back some libertarians.

The trick is, I don't think supporting anyone this election cycle will do much good... But we have two full years to the Presidential elections. I suspect Fox and the GOP will loose interest in the Tea Party no matter how the elections turn out in November. If they win seats, mission accomplished, send the peons home, if they lose seats, it was a failure. Unless they try to ride that wave all the way to the Presidential elections. In any case, they'll eventually abandon the tea party.

That's the time to jump in and start introducing new, less divisive concepts that most everyone could get behind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:04 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I expect the Tea Party will go away.
I expect the Republican Party will go away.

I predict a merger of both into the re-formulated ..........Conservative Party.

Yep, the Conservative Party!! It's the only thing that makes any sense. The "old" labels of Republican and Democrat really don't work or mean anything anymore. Every single thing in America always breaks down to Liberal or Conservative, so let's stop the outdated euphemisms and line up under the banner we truly support.


If only the so-called "conservatives" actually believed in conservatism.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:58 PM

MAL4PREZ


Now... is it me, or is DT saying that the Tea Party could be a good thing if only we'd get rid of the people who have taken over it and completely revamp its message?

I think you have good ideas DT. I wish you would take over the Tea Party and redo it. Maybe convince those Rand Tea Party folk that stomping on a woman's head, then demanding that SHE apologize, isn't the best way to go.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


Byte,

That's because you don't watch Sky News. Murdoch was simultanously telling Europe that the Iraq war was an evil act of aggression.

The reality is that Murdoch wants conservatives to win all elections, so he supports whatever the candidates on the right support.

Murdoch's own belief seems to be that people are gullible, stupid, and willing to follow absolutely anything you dangle in front of their noses. I guess he's right. I mean, we're here on a Firefly fan site, right?

Quote:
Unless they try to ride that wave all the way to the Presidential elections. In any case, they'll eventually abandon the tea party.

That's the time to jump in and start introducing new, less divisive concepts that most everyone could get behind.


You're almost there.

1. They absolutely *WILL* ride it to the election.

2. The time to jump in is now, start setting up that fall back power base so that when Fox et al *do* abandon the tea party, which they *will*, eventually, probably you're right, after 2012, then you will already be in place to take over.

Clever girl.

Quote:
Mike said
If only the so-called "conservatives" actually believed in conservatism.


Mike,

You have an issue with the Tories?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:52 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Now... is it me, or is DT saying that the Tea Party could be a good thing if only we'd get rid of the people who have taken over it and completely revamp its message?

I think you have good ideas DT. I wish you would take over the Tea Party and redo it. Maybe convince those Rand Tea Party folk that stomping on a woman's head, then demanding that SHE apologize, isn't the best way to go.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left


The message was loud and clear, and it came from Ron Paul at the beginning, it's not a major revamp. And we don't need to oust the hijackers, we need to use that media access, and take that membership and educate it to the tea party's own founding principles. Even as I say it I have doubt that it can be done.

As for the Rand Paul incident, screw Rand, and screw his whole thing, I don't know what that's about, but something's very wrong there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:07 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Mike,

You have an issue with the Tories?


Yes. They're there. We're here. They really don't apply to American politics any more than the Taliban does.


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 4:47 PM

DREAMTROVE


The Tories were who we were talking about. The Conservative party. I think we were all on the same page about having a conservative party USA.

Actually, I can think of some great slogans "Oh second thought, let's not secede and say we did."

Technically, those were the wrong Tories. The current Tories are the former Whigs, the names are epithets, not real party names. Now they're loving nicknames. The previous Tories are now the Monarchists, and they're gone, unless they're now the BNP. The tories before them are now Sinn Fein.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I just found this, and since it’s written to me, I’ll address it:
Quote:
I'd have pegged you for more of a loyal democrat
One more time: I’m not a democrat. Yes, I’m liberal, but I’m an independent. But it would be true to say I abhor what the GOP has become somewhat more than I abhor what the Democratic party has become.

Your post was too lengthy for me to address specifically, and I have to get off. But I’ll take the time to say the followsing:
Quote:
I'll grant that it has attracted an increasingly ignorant audience, but it's not really attracting authoritarians or anyone other than libertarians. Even Beck is a libertarian, such as he is.
I disagree MOST wholeheartedly! I’ve heard/read quite a lot of authoritarianism in the Tea Party, and there are those right on this board who claim to be Tea Party supporters who are quite RWA. As to Beck, I have to take that as a joke, for more reasons than I have time to count.
Quote:
Both these elements are present in the tea party and absent from the rest of mainstream politics
The two groups you mentioned aren’t the only peaceful movements around, in my opinion, nor are they absent from the rest of mainstream politics, NOR have I see much of them in the Tea Party. You’d have to provide some facts on that for me to discuss it.

It’s easy to say the Tea Party is a diverse bunch and therefore has no “platform”...but to then say
Quote:
Abortion is a wedge issue. I haven't heard it mentioned yet as a tea party platform at the local tea party, but the more republicans that come in, the more likely it is to happen. It's still out of place on either side of the debate.
is having your cake and eating it too. Abortion is BIG with a good number of this year’s candidates...to the point of not allowing abortion for rape or incest...we’ve heard it from THEIR OWN MOUTHS. Not the Republicans, the neophyte Tea Party candidates who won their nominations.
Quote:
100,000 reformers gained 1 million far right republicans as members, and the final result was one million centrist reformers
You’re entitled to your opinions, and perhaps it’s possible. I just disagree. I believe enough of these people are actually hard liners who believe the extreme positions they espouse that it would be the reverse; also from what I’ve seen, thus far the Republican party has been brought to towing the line of the Tea Party, not the reverse.
Quote:
I wasn't aware there was a tea party position on social issues
Again having your cake and eating it too... “no tea party position” doesn’t work when you claim no Tea Party platform...but what’s come out of the mouths of the CANDIDATES (since they supposedly represent what the Tea Party believes) has been a LOT about social issues. Some concrete examples
Quote:
In New York, Carl Paladino, the tea party-backed Republican candidate for governor, made extreme statements about homosexuality: "That's not how God created us," Paladino said Sunday of homosexuality, "and that's not the example that we should be showing our children."
He added that children who later in life choose to marry people of the opposite sex and raise families would be "much better off and much more successful. I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option," he said.
.
In Colorado, Republican Senate nominee Ken Buck has tried to deflect questions about his stance against abortion rights. But he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He endorsed a state constitutional amendment that would give fetuses constitutional rights

In Delaware, Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell has come under fire over the conservative religious views she espoused as a TV commentator, including preaching against the evils of masturbation.

And in Nevada, Senate candidate Sharron Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician. She opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest, and doesn't believe the Constitution requires the separation of church and state. Her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeks to portray her as outside mainstream America.

In Kentucky, tea party Republican Rand Paul, a candidate for Senate, opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and a proposed mosque near ground zero in New York City. Just hours after the political novice won a landslide primary victory, he took heat for a rambling interview in which he expressed misgivings about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and appeared to suggest that businesses be allowed to deny service to blacks without fear of federal interference.

In Alaska, tea party Senate candidate Joe Miller says he is "unequivocally pro-life./”
http://www.canadaeast.com/front/article/1258763

Those are some examples of social issues coming straight out of Tea Party candidates’ mouths. Although some of them have back-tracked on their statements, that’s electioneering. Those are the statements they made initially, and I believe them.

As to a unified ideology
Quote:
I've seen no evidence of this. In fact, at the outset, Dr. Paul said that they were not, and since then, they've become even more disparate of opinion.
How Dr. Paul started out the libertarian movement, to me, has little to do with what the Tea Party represents currently. It’s morphed, as I see it, into extreme right-wing ideologues and angry, scared, and in many cases ignorant people who have jumped on the bandwagon, led by people who wouldn’t be viable candidates at any other time.
Quote:
If you want a viable alternative, I suspect this is the only one you're going to get
The only one available AT THIS TIME. There’s no way I’m going to jump on the bandwagon of a movement which EXHIBITS ITSELF as everything I loathe (however it started out) just as an alternative. That’s akin to whoever said “I’d vote for a pumpkin over Harry Reid”! Given I don’t believe for one second that they can be swung into any more moderate path, there’s no way I’d support them!
Quote:
It's still a freedom movement in its infancy
I don’t believe that at all. What I do believe is that
Quote:
it could go from enlightment(sic) to reign of terror
Perhaps not reign of terror, but certainly a power that would be unhealthy for America.
Quote:
As for supporting something you disagree with...
Of course I’ve voted for people with whom I have disagreements, who hasn’t? Nobody ever reflects everyone’s beliefs on everything, nor does any party. But there’s a vast difference between supporting a candidate because I disagree with them about this or that, and supporting a candidate who stands for virtually everything I disagree with! That’s not a valid question.
Quote:
they pulled most of the left out and pushed new right in. But that doesn't mean that there is a strong ideological change amount the thinkers in the group, or the origins, or the people and ideals to whom the group looks up.
How many are the “thinkers” in the group, do you know? How many are followers who have grabbed onto emotional issues out of fear and anger, without even KNOWING hat the original “group” was all about? The leaders the group looks up to, as far as I’m concerned, are the candidates they elected in the primaries; those reflect nothing with which I want to be affiliated.

Here is where I stand:

I believe in the usefulness of federal government, even if it only does its job halfway decently.

I believe in civil rights for all and the protection of same.

I believe in free speech, which includes being able to listen to my representatives and question them without being shouted down by people instructed to do so with the backing of moneyed agents.

I'm not a corporationalist and only modestly a capitalist.

I'm rabid about the environment and clean energy.

I want fiscal responsibility, but not without the responsibility of safety nets which I believe the federal government should help to provide.

I believe homosexuals should have as many rights as any other citizen, just as should Muslim citizens and every other citizen of any type.

I'm pro-choice.

I don't believe in espousing violence or revolution if the government isn't going the way I want.

I'm totally against privatization of SSI, Medicare, the Vet, or any of the other social services the fed provides.

I'm against religion of ANY kind in our learning institutions or anywhere else except on private property by those who choose to accept it.

I believe in evolution and science.

Ibelieve in a public option for healthcare, at the very least.

I don't believe in tax cuts for the rich; I'd rather pay taxes for a good purpose than get a tax cut.

I live those beliefs in many, many ways daily. I protest what I believe is wrong and would never prohibit anyone else from protesting what THEY think is wrong.

I believe our government has many flaws, and I want to see them fixed, but through the system; and if the system can't fix them, I still believe our government is better than many others.

Now, where exactly WOULD I fit in the Tea Party as it is now??? Nowhere, nor do I believe I or anyone else would have a chance in hell of turning them to any of those positions.

In essence: I disagree with your opinions of the viability of the Tea Party, nor do I believe it reflects much of anything left over from the libertarian movement. To me, Rand Paul reflects how the Tea Party has morphed from what Ron Paul began. I don't have that much in common with the original libertarian movement, either, tho' I agree with some of it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 28, 2010 2:10 PM

DREAMTROVE


Niki

My great-grandparents were from a country where a democratically elected govt. did not go the way they wanted. That would be Germany. They held the same position you did, which did not stand them in good stead. I'm not saying this is that situation. I'm merely reminding you that it can and does happen.

But this is not a thread about whatever Niki believes. You're not about to join the Tea Party movement was my point. I don't think you would disagree with that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:55 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My great-grandparents were from a country where a democratically elected govt. did not go the way they wanted. That would be Germany. They held the same position you did,
Um... how is Niki's position like a proto-Nazi movement? You're the one saying we should all jump into the Tea Party because we have no other viable options.

Quote:
which did not stand them in good stead. I'm not saying this is that situation. I'm merely reminding you that it can and does happen.
Yes indeed it can happen. The fact that you know it and seemed eager to avoid it makes me even more flabbergasted that you're in any way supportive of the Tea Party.

The best way to avoid the thing that happened in Germany is to be aware of what a political group IS, rather than what you want it to be.

Please, go look at what the Tea Party **is**. Or just read Niki's post again - she laid it down pretty clearly.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 8:22 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mal

My point was simple: Niki's statement was assuming that a democratically elected govt. was, ergo, correct, harmless, or not to be messed with. I'm just saying that's not always the case.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 8:59 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Heroic effort, but they appear to be convinced they know more about the Tea Party than you do. While an outsider's perspective can be very insightful and helpful, it begins to look silly when the outsiders spend most of their time telling those involved "you're wrong." No offense, but when consulting ideals I'd expect followers to have more accurate descriptions of their own ideals than their rivals would.

It reminds me of one of the more frustrating aspects of being a teacher. All these people who do not have your job and have not had your training seem to believe they can do your job better than you can. They make flawed analogies to things like successful businesses practices (apparently they do not realize our 'employees' are children who are not here by choice, are not getting paid and cannot be fired) and continually criticize, but I digress...

I think you made a good case for 'Ron Paul's' version of the Tea Party and you honestly and openly shared the real challenges it faces. Unfortunately, most of the people here would rather talk about a few hijackers and a few ignorant and/or violent supporters and claim it represents the movement as a whole. But I guess that's just how politics works, right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 9:04 AM

JONGSSTRAW


The situation in Germany after WW1 was pretty dire. They went through their depression years before the rest of the world did. The Govt. of the Weimar Republic was democratic, and they were socially and intellectually enlightened. But the rampant inflation and unemployment ultimately led to the rise of the National Socialists and Hitler. Hitler's movement was repugnant to them, but they allowed Hitler's brownshirts to grow in numbers and power because they were doing the dirty work on the streets that the elitists couldn't do...things like beating up and killing communists, anarchists, and any potentially opposing political party members. Then one fine sunny day in 1933 Hitler got himself elected Chancellor. The rest is very sad history. A couple more horrible years of high unemployment and economic hardship could potentially give rise to something similar in America. When men are out of work and can't feed their family they are capable of almost anything.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 11:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:
they appear to be convinced they know more about the Tea Party than you do .... most of the people here would rather talk about a few hijackers and a few ignorant and/or violent supporters and claim it represents the movement as a whole.
I resent that. The impression of the Tea Party we have gotten is that of their rallies, the words of their leaders, and the words OF THE CANDIDATES THEY HAVE PUT UP. If there is no overall “platform” for the Tea Party, and the candidates they have nominated do not espouse principles we respect, where would we get information that would make us believe that those who say they represent the Tea Party, if elected, would behave according to the principles of Ron Paul’s original Tea Party? Where would we get the impression that they would in any way be malleable, since the candidates they have nominated are quite open about their unwillingness to compromise about anything whatsoever, to the point of hinting if they’re not elected, they’ll start a revolution and if they are elected, they won’t even work with the GOP unless the GOP tows THEIR line?

As to telling him he’s “wrong”; I’ve agreed that the original Tea Party, as begun and built by Ron Paul, had some very viable positions and I respect them tho’ I don’t agree with all their positions. I’ll tell you clearly that if the Tea Party represented the original Libertarian tenets, I’d have seriously considered them. But

If the Tea Party movement still represents the original Libertarian movement begun by Ron Paul, then explain this, way back in February:
Quote:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is drawing three primary opponents for his own re-election bid. Ironically, all three are from the Tea Party movement
That’s the first indication that they’re not “his” Libertarians. By April it was showing itself more clearly
Quote:
Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The results suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35988.html

In speking with Rachel Maddow, Paul himself noted some of the difference:
Quote:
In the face of several electoral challenges from tea party-connected candidates, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul cautioned in a recent interview that “neocon influence” is “infiltrating” the movement he is often credited for creating.

Speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, Paul first took up for the tea parties as a natural reaction of the people when they are unhappy with government. What they are not, he explained, are entirely adherent to his ideas. Paul suggested that the group only “sometimes” represents his views.

“My message is somewhat different,” he said. “The message gets somewhat diluted” with large movements of this nature.

“Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement,” Paul continued.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-neocon-influence-is-infiltrating-tea-
parties/

What I should have said to DT was that his experience with libertarianism and the tea party is his experience, he can no more speak for the movement nationally than I can if there is no uniformity of thought, and what both he AND I have seen and heard from their rallies, out of their candidates’ mouths, should have made him question, as it has me, whether the Tea Party of right now represents the Libertarianism of Ron Paul. I don’t think it does. I in no way question DT’s beliefs or those of his fellow Libertarians, I just don’t think that’s what’s happening in the Tea Party nationally.

DT, if your point was that
Quote:
Niki's statement was assuming that a democratically elected govt. was, ergo, correct, harmless, or not to be messed with. I'm just saying that's not always the case.
then your point is wrong. Because YOU were interpreting what I was supposedly “assuming”, and I wasn’t assuming anything...not ANYTHING. I stated what I, personally, believe in, in an effort to show that the Tea Party OF TODAY does not embody any of the principles I hold dear. As an afterthought, I tried to say that if the option were to leave things as they are, versus turning things over to the current slate of Tea Party candidates to change, I would choose the former. I would wait for another movement I felt could influence a beneficial change at a future time, not just jump on any bandwagon which wsn't the existing two-party system because it might get power to effect change.

I never, ever assumed any of what you said I was assuming. You completely misunderstood me, so may I respectfully correct you and ask you not to say what I was assuming before you ask me if that WAS what I was assuming. Thank you.

Actually, JS’s remarks reflect some of what I was trying to say:
Quote:
rampant inflation and unemployment ultimately led to the rise of the National Socialists and Hitler. Hitler's movement was repugnant to them, but they allowed Hitler's brownshirts to grow in numbers and power. .... A couple more horrible years of high unemployment and economic hardship could potentially give rise to something similar in America. When men are out of work and can't feed their family they are capable of almost anything.
THAT is part of why I fear the Tea Party. Any group which is ideologically so unyielding, at a time when a country is weakened by fear and anger, is potentially dangerous.

The actual disagreement between DT and I, it appears to me, is that he is arguing toward enveloping the Tea Party in hopes of moderating them to improve the government; I see them as a movement which will be extremely difficult to moderate, if it’s even possible, and fear their rigidity and hard conservatism on social issues.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 11:33 AM

DREAMTROVE


HappyTrader,

Thanks



Niki

Chill.

Footnote: No candidates that I know of are "from" the tea party, It's way too soon for that. That's like saying "I have roots that go all the way back to 2007. Any opponent of Ron Paul's would claim the tea party, but that's just TPTB trying to get rid of Paul, who founded the tea party on guy fawkes day 2007 as has already been very well demonstrated.


Jongg

The Wiemar Republic was being manipulated by post WWI financial powers. But I think my point was that democracies fail. This democracy is under attack from many sides, not the least of which is voting machines. The best defense is to organize.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 11:40 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Quote:
I resent that. The impression of the Tea Party we have gotten is that of their rallies, etc...


I'm sorry, I didn't really mean to imply you were that arrogant. A good example of the dangers of generalizations I suppose. I like your comments because you're like "This is what I see, this is why I think this" and I respect that. That promotes more understanding of the issue and intelligent conversation than a "You're wrong, you must be stupid, this is why you are wrong" kind of approach.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 3:36 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
should have made him question, as it has me, whether the Tea Party of right now represents the Libertarianism of Ron Paul. I don’t think it does.


This thread is not about whether or not the tea party at large still represents the platform of Ron Paul. I know it doesn't, you know it doesn't, DT knows it doesn't. What DT is saying is that most of the people IN the tea party, the followers, not the leaders, still believe the tea party is more about less government than it is about racism, homosexuality, religious intolerance, or anything else. Less government is a libertarian idea.

Quote:
The actual disagreement between DT and I, it appears to me, is that he is arguing toward enveloping the Tea Party in hopes of moderating them to improve the government; I see them as a movement which will be extremely difficult to moderate, if it’s even possible, and fear their rigidity and hard conservatism on social issues.


You're correct that it will be extremely difficult to moderate the movement and make it a cross spectrum phenomenon. And a cross spectrum phenomenon is exactly what it'll take to kick TPTB and all the corruption out of office, maybe institute campaign reform and better economic policy.

DT has told me some details and I think he can attract the attention he wants, and if he has positive media attention he can get his message to his audience. Once the GOP abandons the party after 2012, it's ripe for a moderate libertarian takeover, provided folks establish themselves early.

There is still a very prevalent idea of less government in the tea party, and that's the base DT will build on. I believe he will be successful.

I think you need to pause for a second and ask yourself if you want him to be successful. I think you might, because I think you'd be very much in favour of seeing a more moderate tea party. So I'm wishing DT every bit of luck I can, and I'm also eager to help.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 29, 2010 11:36 PM

DREAMTROVE


Byte,

Thanks ;)

Niki

As to racism in the Tea Party, I think it's mostly media hype. I haven't seen it yet, first hand, but there is a growing tide in all political walks that seems anti-latino and anti-muslim.

To cross threads for a moment, Rap has a very valid point about Clinton: He appears to be bopping about the country asking black people to withdraw from races. He's on his fifth or so. He asked our gov. Paterson who we quite like to step down so Baby Cuomo, who is even worse than his dad, can run. One major change for us is that we lose a pro-environment gov. for one who got most of his money from oil and gas companies.

Clinton put a lot of pressure on Obama to withdraw in 2008, since then has ousted a lot, Burris, and maybe Rangel, we'll see. My mom has been watching this one for a while, I'm sure she has a list. It's also worth noting that all of the blacks that are being pushed out are democrats. It's one of the things that gives me some sympathy with Obama: His own party seems out to get him, and not for any valid policy disagreement.

So yes, Niki, I grant this is a problem. I'm not yet convinced that it is more of a problem for the Tea Party than for anywhere else in politics, or America as a whole.


Here are a couple other things that are worth noting:

People in India report that sometimes when they get calls from American customers, the customers ask "Can I talk to a real person?"

Also, how many times have your heard politicians, including our president refer blanketly to "the Chinese" as if it was some sort of disease. Sure, I can take personal offense at that one, but then we're diverse enough that everyone can take personal offense at something.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 30, 2010 12:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think you need to pause for a second and ask yourself if you want him to be successful. I think you might, because I think you'd be very much in favour of seeing a more moderate tea party. So I'm wishing DT every bit of luck I can, and I'm also eager to help.

Alas, in this particular instance, DT and myself are actually in direct opposition to each other, cause the party he wants to rescuscitate (regardless of what we're CALLING it at the moment) is the same one *I* want to hammer the stake in.

And I have already explained my reasons and rationale behind that.

So, as I mentioned before when there seem to be multiple "workable" solutions, I wish him the very best of luck, even as I prepare to mow his ass flat.

He has his way, I got mine - and whereever jackboot licking authoritarians sleaze off to, they always wind up contaminating and subverting the place, just ask the so-called Libertarians, and this'll be no different, so MY response to the roach infestation, in the political sense, is quarantine followed by carpet bombing.

I got more to say some other time about WHY the authoritarian subversion is absolutely, incontrovertably inevitable, but I ain't got the time at the moment...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 30, 2010 3:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:
Ergo, potentially, Tea Party=freedom and Dems/GOP=authoritarianism.


I can concur with this.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:34 AM

BYTEMITE


EDIT: Hmm. Forgot who I was talking to for a moment there.

I admit the GOP is the tea party right now, however it may have started out (with Ron Paul or the current iteration with GOP secret meetings right after Obama was elected).

I just think there will come a point when the GOP will abandon the tea party. There's a lot of people who won't know what to do with themselves if or when that happens. All the bad -isms in the tea party aside, they want less government. I want to help them get that.

If we could use them to topple both the democrats and the republican party after being used for the republican horse for a while, it would be most poetic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 30, 2010 3:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem,

Byte is right. The GOP/FOX machine will abandon the Tea Party, probably after 2012, and I will be there to pick up the pieces. I've seen this done, and I know how it's done. Then I can use it to infiltrate the democratic and republican parties (*who cares which mascot or color disguise you wear when you take down the tower?) My aim is the same as yours, end the federalist authoritarian state, only I intend to have allies along the way, not just enemies.

You said yourself this dog and pony show goes both ways.

Also, curiously, Auraptor is with me. Thanks, dude.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 10:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, I disagree:
Quote:
No candidates that I know of are "from" the tea party, It's way too soon for that
If a candidate is overwhelmingly supported by the tea party, financially and otherwise, and the tea party claims “victory” for their winning the nomination, that makes them a Tea Party candidate, in my view.

Thank you Trader, I do try (and no apology necessary; you’re almost invariably civil in your posts, that’s all I hope for—and the chance t refute what I believe is wrong). As far as I’m concerned, anything anyone says here is their opinion unless it’s accepted, provable fact and, as you know, it pisses me off when people say “that’s a fact” with nothing but their own biases to back it up. I fail a lot, but I try to remember that my opinions are shaped by MY experiences, what I’VE read/heard/seen, and may not be the whole story.
Quote:
What DT is saying is that most of the people IN the tea party, the followers, not the leaders, still believe the tea party is more about less government than it is about racism, homosexuality, religious intolerance, or anything else. Less government is a libertarian idea.
Byte, now THAT I can agree with; it appeared more than he was saying the WHOLE Tea Party, rather than just the followers and some of the leaders. I still believe there is a fair contingent for whom it IS social issues, but no, I don’t believe by a long shot that it is “all”, or even necessarily “most”.
Quote:
He appears to be bopping about the country asking black people to withdraw from races
You’d have to show in how many of those races there is an extremist candidate and the Democratic candidate he’s trying to get to drop out has no chance of winning anyway; in which case the reason for urging them to drop out would be in hopes of electing a more moderate Republican. I don’t know the facts or how many times this is happening; I’ve only heard of one, so I’d need to know the circumstances to make some kind of leap to his being racist.
Quote:
People in India report that sometimes when they get calls from American customers, the customers ask "Can I talk to a real person?"
And of course, none of those asking that are Tea Partiers, conservatives or libertarians. I think people are so sick out outsourced people on the other line whose English is so impossible to understand that it’s a valid reaction.
Quote:
As to racism in the Tea Party, I think it's mostly media hype. I haven't seen it yet, first hand
It may be media picking up on it, but it doesn’t need to be hyped when it comes out of their own mouths. Talk of reinstituting literacy tests. The incredibly obvious racism of that idiot in New York, and on the signs and in the words hollered at Tea Party rallies. There are many examples—you can say it’s the “leaders”, those trying to play to racism in order to rile up the base, but it’s there; I’ve seen, heard and read enough of it not to have any doubts remaining.
Quote:
there is a growing tide in all political walks that seems anti-latino and anti-muslim
I don’t think that’s true. I see those on the right playing on it, using buzz words to elicit visceral reactions, and it’s been a useful ploy for them. There was, of course, no “Southern Strategy”, you’re saying...given the huge majority of Tea Partiers lean right, it’s a fair accusation.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:30 PM

DREAMTROVE


Niki

Overwhelmingly, the financial backing of the Tea Party is not the result of Tea Party fundraisers from Tea Party members, which was what it was when Ron Paul set it up.

Au Contraire, This election season, "Tea Party" candidates are largely getting their money from the GOP and secret corporate donors. *AND* they're not the only ones. The major backer of Gov. to be Cuomo is the Dubai Islamic Bank (Sorry, that's its actual name.) It's currently a defendant in the lawsuit for 9.11 damages.

Funny thing life. At some point, you have to put down the partisan shield and realize who the real enemy is, and start fighting it.

Somehow, I don't think that an uprising of the people is the enemy. This started out as a student protest. Now it's grown, and sure, has attracted some undesirable elements, but that doesn't mean that all, or even a majority of what it has attracted are undesirable. Mostly, they're people who believe that govt. is out of control.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:43 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm fully aware of who subsidizes MOST politics in this country. My entire point is that while not "all, or even a majority of what it has attracted are undesirable", fer shore, and a good portion of the CANDIDATES they've put up are, to me, distinctly undesirable. To put those people in power is what I object to, not the Tea Party itself, then or now.

I also decry a lot of what those candidates, some people who supposedly represent the Tea Party, the monied interests behind it, and some of those who are supposedly "leaders" in the Tea Party, have said and indicated are their stances.

I believe our views are different, yours and mine. Respectfully, I think you are seeing what you wish was there; I may be seeing what I FEAR is there, but the way the GOP is being turned to the extreme right as a result of the Tea Party's power might indicate my fears are more valid than your wishes. Only time will tell which of us is right, or neither.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:07 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Somehow, I don't think that an uprising of the people is the enemy.


Depends.

Much of Hitler's power derived from an "uprising of the people" (coupled with some high-powered monied backing, of course...)

Much of Napoleon's power, too.

Ditto Stalin. And Lenin. And Mao.

It's not so much what the "uprising of the people" does, as what it brings in afterwards, that's the worry. And to hear the tea party people, militarism and fascism are their aim and their game.

That's how it looks from where I sit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

Ignoring the godwin, we're not so much at that point to worry atm. I posted already that there was a possibility that any uprising could result in Robespierre even if it started with the Enlightenment.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


The point is, DT, that NONE of those uprisings were at the point where people needed to worry, until they WERE at that point.

Saying this is nothing to worry about YET is cold comfort, to say the least.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


By the way, I think yelling "Godwin!" is the new godwin. ;)


The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:07 PM

MAL4PREZ


DT, if you're out to bring sanity to the Tea Party, I'm all for it. This country needs a sane third party option. And I'm all for less government. You know, less military, less big brother, stuff like that.

However, a few things about you make me doubt. First, your tendency to make rules about what's good and bad.

"Somehow, I don't think that an uprising of the people is the enemy."

As Kwicko pointed out, of *course* uprisings of the people can be bad. Very very bad. Anything can be bad. You have to keep your eyes and mind open to judge every instance as it happens. I see you doing the opposite: making up your mind in advance and twisting your observations because you so very very badly want this thing you believe in to be true.

And also, twisting reality to make enemies of the things you don't believe in. Such as saying that Clinton has asked FIVE black politicians to step down. Yes, there's been press about Meeks in FL, but Meeks himself denies it. And if you'd read up a bit you'd see there's more to the situation than a white guy going after a black guy: there's a whole big messy complicated situation with Charlie Christ. It's more likely a war between national and state politics that Meeks is trying to game as much as anyone else.

As for the other four? You mention only two: Burris and Rangel. Are you really not paying attention? Can you not see any reason for these two yokels to be asked to step aside besides their race?

Sorry DT. I really do want to believe that someone will step in and make the Tea Party not insane, but you won't do it saying the things you have here. Political sanity (yes, the word's overused this weekend, but it's about damned time LOL!) requires logic and an openness to factual information. You're not so far out as many, but you're treading the line.

If and when the Tea Party has successful candidates who actually talk facts rather than spouting nonsense and hiding from the press, I'll applaud you. Until then, I will continue to doubt.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I posted already that there was a possibility that any uprising could result in Robespierre even if it started with the Enlightenment.

And I think you don't worry ENOUGH about this.

I've already pointed out that his primary mistake was just scooping off the top instead of addressing the real causes that CREATE such monsters in the first place, cause monstrous that Robespierre was, many of the folk catchin the sharp edge in the neck were actually worse - doesn't make him any less one himself, though.

But to do that, it takes TIME, and it takes a certain instability of the system to bend its course, you see...
(And you know damn well where I am goin with this)

And as such, being a take-what-I-can-get kind of pragmatist just beneath the idealism, and having not one bloody ounce of respect or mercy when it comes to the would-be tyrants and their would-be jackboots just DROOLING for the chance to build a new empire....

Sure, I work towards trying to solve the issues which create such monsters in the first place, but consider well that if it ever comes to the point where I earnestly believe there's no other way to buy the time and cut down the numbers, that I *would* absolutely, deliberately, intentionally, provoke a new reign of terror to destroy as much of them and their hell spawned political, social and physical infrastructure as I could possibly reach.

And you'd do well to remember that.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 3:14 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you, Frem and Cav, for your eloquence in making points I couldn't in much better manner than I could.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 5:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


Or, my understanding of the French Revolution is a little more sophisticated than that and I know exactly what the danger signs are, and we're nowhere near that now.

What I'm hearing is "No, don't support the revolution because it might lead to something awful."

Well, that sounds an awful lot like "No, don't disturb the status quo because we have it so good right now."


Frem, hell, I'd welcome back Marie Antoinette over what we have. But while I agree that the confrontational G20 tactic of making TPTB act like the worst of humanity to make them look bad works, to some degree, I don't think it ever has to come to this point.

Here's what we're really talking about: Whether or not there will be political dissent in the future, and what the nature of that dissent will be.

The current Tea Party, in the hands of FOX and Friends will be a force for intollerence, sure, but it doesn't have to be, and since there's going to be no dissent at all coming from any other corner about the creep corporatist fascism, the imperial genocidal wars or the new ruling class moneyed aristocracy printing enough cash to declare themselves owners of anything and everything, etc. etc., then it's gotta come from somewhere.

So, here's what I'm hearing "Don't try, you might fail."

Yeah, I might fail. I know one thing for sure, if I don't try, I *will* fail.

So, points well taken, I don't see these as serious problems, but its not because I haven't thought of them.


Mal,

If you rely on democrat friendly information sources you will not hear what a real racist genocidal SOB Bill Clinton is. I don't care if he's a personal friend. The man is connected to more ethnic killings than anyone currently alive. He has made his hatred of blacks in particular plain enough times.

I apologize though, I said I'd get you a list, and I should. These threads are so confusing I lose track. I'll ask my mom. She was a civil rights activist and is always keeping tabs on these things. I can add Paterson and Greene to the list, though I think Greene is still in, but there are several others. The result of this will be a congress in which Jews are over represented, Asians and Latinos are under represented, and Muslims and Blacks are not represented at all.

I don't know why we don't just go to representational voting. I mean, not just ethnic groups, political groups. If 3% of the people vote socialist, then 3% of the seats should be held by socialists. It's the way many democracies work, and it seems to work fine.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, Niki - thing is, it's Stefan Molyneux who eventually pointed out the ridiculousness of trying "reform" in this fashion.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

Now, mind, I like Ron Paul, think he's a great guy with a lot of really damn good ideas, but he's working within a system DESIGNED to PREVENT them from ever being applied.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Who hates Israel?
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:45 - 81 posts
French elections, and France in general
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:43 - 187 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, December 21, 2024 12:53 - 4898 posts
North Korea
Sat, December 21, 2024 12:48 - 259 posts
The worst Judges, Merchants of Law, Rogue Prosecutors, Bad Cops, Criminal Supporting Lawyers, Corrupted District Attorney in USA? and other Banana republic
Sat, December 21, 2024 12:46 - 54 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Sat, December 21, 2024 12:38 - 69 posts
LOL... SixSigma isn't dying... It's dead.
Sat, December 21, 2024 12:15 - 6 posts
Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould: The scandal that could unseat Canada's PM
Sat, December 21, 2024 12:12 - 73 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Sat, December 21, 2024 11:52 - 23 posts
'Flat-Earth' movement or Flat Earther cult is growing...in 2023 & 2024 not the 1400s
Sat, December 21, 2024 11:47 - 49 posts
Sachs & Mearsheimer: There Is Basically One Deep State Party Of Cheney, Harris, And Biden, Embodied By Victoria Nuland
Sat, December 21, 2024 11:44 - 4 posts
Atheists, Coward Fake Liberals - quick to criticize Christianity, Buddhism and other soft groups but Spineless Chickenshits when it comes to Islam?
Sat, December 21, 2024 11:35 - 22 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL