Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well there are a wide variety of opinions from the Tea Party, it isn't some unified homogeneous thing stamped from a die. In the case of Rand Paul for instance, Sarah Palin endorsed him, yet at the same time Palin is very much a pro-war, pro-military spending, pro-interventionist Republican. Rand Paul on the other hand is more Libertarian and like his dad to some degree, is less inclined towards military adventures abroad or interventionist foreign policy. The fact that Paul has even mentioned foreign aid would have been political suicide just 4 years ago as it was for several other members of Congress in the past.
Now her endorsement of Paul is a bit of an indicator of her more than anything as I don't think she "did much thinking" about Paul's politics, as they are polar opposites when it comes to foreign policy. Since Paul was an early star of the Tea Party candidates, she wanted her share of attention so hopped on the gravy train.
In any event, we won't really see where these new people stand until they actually place a vote or two, because politics doesn't mean doing what you say, it means more of getting people to vote for you based upon your rhetoric and by the time actions come around, the American attention span has long since followed 2458724 other subjects.
You're operating under the assumption that you know who/what is steering conservative agenda. Palin is paid to do what she's told. She doesn't have to think anymore than Bush did. This family feud of republican identity splaying itself across the country is an exercise of retooling conservative brand. Disparate groups jockeying for power grabs. They'd be fine installing a steaming pile of dung antithetical to everything they claim to stand for today (yet change their minds tomorrow) so long as it opposes anything remotely close to democrat. Any bona fide 3rd party having any agreement/ consensus building with democrats can expect to see assaults from RW media & concomitantly Tea. Accusations of foul play, thuggery, oppression of free speech, until it is they committing the crime. Watch the vicious heads turn on independence party and deliberate marginalization by all RW sources.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Tea is as fickle as the wind save for their Reagan doctrine worship. United by hatred, the exasperatingly long contradictory laundry lists of grievances, the dizzying spin of misattributed blame, and the rebranding sale of Reaganomics as a hair of the dog remedy in revival tent style. Who will win this ideological tug of war? Libertarians aren't so attached to getting credit for all things, but Tea is because they're committed not to higher principles, but appeals to the basest elements of bloodthirsty crowds. It may very well play out when all is said and done that the republican party (or everything we knew it to be) will be usurped by libertarian ideology so long as the tippy toe around conservative ego's is minded- make them believe it was their own idea all along is the pattern. Please see Rubio's language post election. How long will he be their hero before the tantrums start again?
Beck's mission to herd libertarian stragglers becoming a testament of wills. So long as the agenda set forth from moneyed interests is permitted to insert their loopholes/ earmarks with sufficient discretion, all will be well & good with a Disney world view audience.
The Tea party did not give birth to Rand Paul, or Ron Paul, or Libertarian positions. It is YOU riding on their coat tails, not the other way around. Get over yourselves. You were the very same people installing malevolence like Delay and Bush at the EXPENSE of Ron Paul positions. Lie to yourselves forever but you're in for disappointment if you believe the rest of us owe you credence.
LMAO "riding their coattails" "owe me credence" how silly to make something up like that. Once again an incorrect assumption. Don't get mad at me because the people you back have bad policies and failed us, lol. Make no mistake about it, this is not about me. None of the policies I back are MY ideas.
It's the ones who won't change, who continue to go down the same path of failure that are the problem. If we keep voting in the same ones, with the same horrible policies, we will continue to fail.
The voters who back these failed policies should take responsibility and learn from those mistakes, instead of deflecting and blaming others. Look for what has proven to work, without denying peoples rights, not what SOUNDS like it will work under the guise of helping.
Congress with their all encompassing anti Free market policies have put this country into the mess we are in today. We know which people in Congress are for smaller government by the way they vote.
It's funny. I read similar posts from people playing the race card. Since someone didn't wake up before the only reason they are speaking now is because they are racist. Or like this post, with false claims. So no one can ever come around and change their philosphy according to these posts.
To be sure there are people who didn't get it when Bush was in office but now that the house of cards has fallen they can see clearer. And somehow that's a bad thing???? More and more people are finally waking up to the horrible role our over reaching Federal Government has played in our lives.
Now there is a comment we can both agree upon, and it is why I believe the New York Times article is in error.
Point exactly where NYT is in error. It's pointing at a contradiction, and one all are obliged to examine. NYT's doesn't actually define anything. Peoples words and deeds, particularly their failure to align within themselves, do. If you're declaring yourself Christian and hanging a pentagram on your front door expect to be called on it.
The longstanding grievances against GOP inside and out... "be who you say you are". Caught in contradictions, rebranding upon rebranding upon rebranding, the answer now as O'Donnell so aptly put it is... "I am YOU". Muddled, rudderless, reactionary, void of core principles. Does that define the republicans I've voted for in the past? No. Now? Absolutely. Partisan smear? Dems are not immune and have had the same laments hurled at them by fringe groups. Blanche Lincoln's centrist positions were beaten up by liberals, Tea and GOP.
All the article has is a single member, Rand Paul, who clearly states he doesn't support foreign aid for Israel. Big deal. He doesn't represent anything beyond the sentiments of Rand Paul. Rand Paul isn't a movement, he has his typical "10%" of the population who will cheer him on, but that's about it.
Yeah, RP must be some kind of nut to think we shouldn't continuing borrowing money that future taxpayers will have to pay back with interest, in order to give it away in other countries! Surely no more than 10% of the American people could agree with radical thinking like that, when we're only $14 trillion in the hole just on the federal level?
Point exactly where NYT is in error. It's pointing at a contradiction, and one all are obliged to examine. NYT's doesn't actually define anything. Peoples words and deeds, particularly their failure to align within themselves, do. If you're declaring yourself Christian and hanging a pentagram on your front door expect to be called on it.
The longstanding grievances against GOP inside and out... "be who you say you are". Caught in contradictions, rebranding upon rebranding upon rebranding, the answer now as O'Donnell so aptly put it is... "I am YOU". Muddled, rudderless, reactionary, void of core principles. Does that define the republicans I've voted for in the past? No. Now? Absolutely. Partisan smear? Dems are not immune and have had the same laments hurled at them by fringe groups. Blanche Lincoln's centrist positions were beaten up by liberals, Tea and GOP.
Sure, no problem at all.
From the subject article:
Scores of Tea Party-backed candidates are entering Congress, many of whom favor isolationist policies and are determined to cut American foreign aid, regardless of its destination.
The sentiment portrayed in that statement is that cutting aid is an objective of many new members. However, they only discuss Paul, whose sentiments are well known. Others, such as Rubio, have an opposite sentiment concerning aid.
So, where do they get any substance behind the statement concerning cutting foreign aid? How does one know if the incoming are any more or less isolationist in sentiment than the outgoing/defeated representatives?
The answer is that the article just assumes all of this.
Well, John Boehner is the probable next House Speaker, and aside from being an impassioned bailout supporter (see this fascinating video for more details), he is a staunch supporter of aid to Israel.
So, as much as a few "Tea Party" folks may protest, they will probably be sidelined and pushed away from the levers of actual power.
Well, John Boehner is the probable next House Speaker, and aside from being an impassioned bailout supporter (see this fascinating video for more details), he is a staunch supporter of aid to Israel.
So, as much as a few "Tea Party" folks may protest, they will probably be sidelined and pushed away from the levers of actual power.
My god. This is what we as a nation elected in this "november revolution"? This slimy mumbling drab inarticulate bonehead heading House of Representatives? I actually had a tear in my eye, and NOT a happy one.
LMAO "riding their coattails" "owe me credence" how silly to make something up like that. Once again an incorrect assumption. Don't get mad at me because the people you back have bad policies and failed us, lol. Make no mistake about it, this is not about me. None of the policies I back are MY ideas.
It's the ones who won't change, who continue to go down the same path of failure that are the problem. If we keep voting in the same ones, with the same horrible policies, we will continue to fail.
The voters who back these failed policies should take responsibility and learn from those mistakes, instead of deflecting and blaming others. Look for what has proven to work, without denying peoples rights, not what SOUNDS like it will work under the guise of helping.
Congress with their all encompassing anti Free market policies have put this country into the mess we are in today. We know which people in Congress are for smaller government by the way they vote.
It's funny. I read similar posts from people playing the race card. Since someone didn't wake up before the only reason they are speaking now is because they are racist. Or like this post, with false claims. So no one can ever come around and change their philosphy according to these posts.
To be sure there are people who didn't get it when Bush was in office but now that the house of cards has fallen they can see clearer. And somehow that's a bad thing???? More and more people are finally waking up to the horrible role our over reaching Federal Government has played in our lives.
Lower the debt, smaller federal government.
Observations are not assumptions. Your words and deeds have not been on the same page from day one. There's no change of heart because that would mean you'd be forced to admit you were actually wrong about anything... ever. Words and deeds incongruous as individuals, as an <alleged> party, not even as a 'movement' as texdav labels you. Malcontents grasping for scapegoats isn't what I'd call a movement.
You've yet to even identify what's failed, to commit brain cells truthfully as to the root causes about any subject of relevance. Fire the ones who follow failed policies... like McCain? Like Mayor Palin spending 1/2 a million on a gaggle of lawyers to go fetch 8 million in earmarks for her one horse town??? 'Trample no one's rights' yet evokes eminent domain for the greater good of a hockey rink? The mavericky maverick up by her bootstraps that can't manage to wipe her own behind without sending the septic bill to the Federal gov't? THOSE failed policies?
YOU BETCHA we're sick of sound bytes. The only plans you have are destructive. Constructive ideas? Entirely empty headed and empty handed.
The hair flip nose in the air 'whateva' really doesn't cut it with me. Not from snotty plebe liberals, not from Sharpton wannabe's, and especially not from entitled middle aged materialists. One herd of turkey's with noses in the air drowning in the rain is no different than another.
Observations are not assumptions. Your words and deeds have not been on the same page from day one. There's no change of heart because that would mean you'd be forced to admit you were actually wrong about anything... ever. Words and deeds incongruous as individuals, as an <alleged> party, not even as a 'movement' as texdav labels you. Malcontents grasping for scapegoats isn't what I'd call a movement.
lol, you have no idea when I started backing Ron Paul. Please refrain from making things up about people and issues you do not know about. Remember it's not about me, it's about the horrible policies from the people you vote into office.
You didn't post anything of substance. Observations are based on facts. I back what works. You still haven't debunked that, only thrown around unfounded slurs at ME based on what YOU incorrectly perceive me to be. Issues matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
You've yet to even identify what's failed, to commit brain cells truthfully as to the root causes about any subject of relevance. Fire the ones who follow failed policies... like McCain? Like Mayor Palin spending 1/2 a million on a gaggle of lawyers to go fetch 8 million in earmarks for her one horse town??? 'Trample no one's rights' yet evokes eminent domain for the greater good of a hockey rink? The mavericky maverick up by her bootstraps that can't manage to wipe her own behind without sending the septic bill to the Federal gov't? THOSE failed policies?
Okay here is part of your misinformation and why you are confused. Palin didn't have a impact on US policies when she was Governor. And yes McCains policies are horrible. The flip flopping on illegal immigration, backing theft packages, backing an illegal invasion of sovereign nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
YOU BETCHA we're sick of sound bytes. The only plans you have are destructive. Constructive ideas? Entirely empty headed and empty handed.
lmao that's what your post is, a soundbite with no substance, no discussing of the failed policies. Your posts don't discuss issues because the policies of the ones you backed are known failures.
I think anyone who does not NOW recognize the FACT that Ron Paul and others like him were 100 percent correct on the end result of the housing bubble and 100 percent correct on the reasons why we should not go into IRAQ is so uninformed or have blinders on they shouldn't be talking politics. The biggest issue at election time was the economy. A Congressman said, "The calls against the bailout were running 50/50. Half say no, the other half say h*ll no." Yet the bought and paid for politicians YOU back ignored the will of the people and voted in the theft packages. How'd that work out? Unemployment under 8 percent yet?
The ones who have been paying attention knew it wouldn't work. How could it? Why rely on the very same ones who got us into this mess, to get us out? Manipulating the economy does not work. It causes booms and busts and the busts are always worse than the booms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
The hair flip nose in the air 'whateva' really doesn't cut it with me. Not from snotty plebe liberals, not from Sharpton wannabe's, and especially not from entitled middle aged materialists. One herd of turkey's with noses in the air drowning in the rain is no different than another.
This post still hasn't said anything of substance and failed to address the point I made on the previous post. The point I made is, according to your posts, as well as others, the only people who change their views are racists and hypocrites.
I believe in people. People are slow to implement actual change but sooner or later come around. We have very good survival skills. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Quit going back to the poisonous well, it's bankrupting us.
Smaller federal government, lower the debt.
Scores of Tea Party-backed candidates are entering Congress, many of whom favor isolationist policies and are determined to cut American foreign aid, regardless of its destination.
The sentiment portrayed in that statement is that cutting aid is an objective of many new members. However, they only discuss Paul, whose sentiments are well known. Others, such as Rubio, have an opposite sentiment concerning aid.
So, where do they get any substance behind the statement concerning cutting foreign aid? How does one know if the incoming are any more or less isolationist in sentiment than the outgoing/defeated representatives?
The answer is that the article just assumes all of this.
The rubber has to hit the road somewhere. GOP candidates are taking marching orders from Tea (ahem what controls Tea) altering the party's identity to suit them... if cutting costs at all costs is the plan, there should be no sacred cow.
Mentioning Rubio is pertinent to point at the bigger problem (which is another article)-- states are special interest groups unto themselves. Note that every candidate on the Florida ballot for that race was pro Israel. Tea choosing a candidate saying otherwise apparently would have guaranteed a loss. Right up there running a pacifist candidate in Texas. It's never going to happen.
Don't be so touchy about Rand getting the NYT spotlight. The same question has been broached before... The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Rand Paul and Israel and Rand Paul and Israel | Conservative Heritage Times
I'm aware of his positions on issues, but the thing most needful is knowing where he draws the line. That seems to be the question that makes him withdraw from responding the same way he danced around civil rights revisited. The harder you try to nail him down to just say who he is plainly, the more hemming and hawing you'll get. As for Rubio, declaring himself catholic yet regularly attending Evangelical megachurch isn't inspiring lots of confidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
