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.
And your solution to the tyranny we are having shackled around our ankles is........ ?
I agree with most of what you are posting. But where does that leave the rest of us who believe in individual liberty for all? Is there anywhere to turn other than allowing the oligarchy's shaft up our rears? (and smiling as if it's a gift)
Well, that was all gone over last summer and up to the election. And it was in my response to the other when I answered Question 2.
I voted for RP because I believe that he stood for what I believe in, no matter how crazy everyone thought he was. When I actually talked to people, fellow Republicans, (typically at the Commissary where I used to work), the only thing they didn't like about him was his foreign policy. Everything else, they couldn't argue with...but because of his views on foreign policy, he was labeled, "crazy". Whatever. Was Mitt really a better alternative? I'm not going to rehash all the debate that went on last year about RP, it's in the archives here. When people stop believing that the only choices are the two clowns slammed down our throats, and stand up and start seeing that there are alternatives, then maybe we can start making a difference. Until people stop accepting, what they term as, 'sh*t sandwiches' (and which one is less repulsive, disregarding the fact that they are both still sh*t sandwiches), we will never change.
The same can be done at local levels and state levels. Some RP voters did do that, some Tea Partiers are trying to do that. The problem is, the Tea Party has been taken over by people who are more interested in scare tactics and begathons.
Well, that was all gone over last summer and up to the election. And it was in my response to the other when I answered Question 2.
I voted for RP because I believe that he stood for what I believe in, no matter how crazy everyone thought he was. When I actually talked to people, fellow Republicans, (typically at the Commissary where I used to work), the only thing they didn't like about him was his foreign policy. Everything else, they couldn't argue with...but because of his views on foreign policy, he was labeled, "crazy". Whatever. Was Mitt really a better alternative? I'm not going to rehash all the debate that went on last year about RP, it's in the archives here. When people stop believing that the only choices are the two clowns slammed down our throats, and stand up and start seeing that there are alternatives, then maybe we can start making a difference. Until people stop accepting, what they term as, 'sh*t sandwiches' (and which one is less repulsive, disregarding the fact that they are both still sh*t sandwiches), we will never change.
The same can be done at local levels and state levels. Some RP voters did do that, some Tea Partiers are trying to do that. The problem is, the Tea Party has been taken over by people who are more interested in scare tactics and begathons.
RP is a huge hypocrite. That's why he can't gain traction anywhere.
While he says all these words about this and that, his track record of obtaining pork for his district, his failure to join the firebrands who DO try to do things and get out front to take the arrows... means he's become comfortable being one to make verbal snipes from the sidelines while playing the same game.
I'm basically saying they are separate groups, but have a lot of the same ideals. RP and his supporters never got on the TP bandwagon, but it seems that they probably were the first step in that direction, movement-wise in the general sense.
You would know better than I would. If you disagree with my clarification here, I'd appreciate your insights. When I saw RP speak, he said something similar so when I saw the other person's post I responded to, I felt like that was confirmation of sorts. I'm interested in your take.
You are correct. They do have a lot of the same ideals. Not all of them are the same, but yes, what the Tea Party says they want to do is, in many ways, similar to what RP people want. And as much as people want to ignore the facts, you are correct in your second statement, as well.
But then it got out of control. And now you get newsletters telling you that they need $62,000 to run yet another advertisement. I was going through my deleted emails because I don't even read those newsletters any more. Out of 10, ONE was reasonable. It gave a list of numbers and other contact information for each Senator and Congress critter so that people would be able to easily pick up the phone, or write to them. ONE. The rest of the letters are asking for more and more money. They are being "outspent" by the Democrats. I certainly hope so! Dems love spending! The last thing I would want a group I support (note: I do not support the Tea Party), is to try to outspend Dems.
So, if the party was overtaken by organizations claiming to be the Tea Party...then who really is the Tea Party? How do you find out? Every single thing I have looked for over the years ends up being the same thing, asking for money. More money, give us money, money, money, money.
RP is a huge hypocrite. That's why he can't gain traction anywhere.
While he says all these words about this and that, his track record of obtaining pork for his district, his failure to join the firebrands who DO try to do things and get out front to take the arrows... means he's become comfortable being one to make verbal snipes from the sidelines while playing the same game.
Well, that was all gone over last summer and up to the election. And it was in my response to the other when I answered Question 2.
I voted for RP because I believe that he stood for what I believe in, no matter how crazy everyone thought he was. When I actually talked to people, fellow Republicans, (typically at the Commissary where I used to work), the only thing they didn't like about him was his foreign policy. Everything else, they couldn't argue with...but because of his views on foreign policy, he was labeled, "crazy". Whatever. Was Mitt really a better alternative? I'm not going to rehash all the debate that went on last year about RP, it's in the archives here. When people stop believing that the only choices are the two clowns slammed down our throats, and stand up and start seeing that there are alternatives, then maybe we can start making a difference. Until people stop accepting, what they term as, 'sh*t sandwiches' (and which one is less repulsive, disregarding the fact that they are both still sh*t sandwiches), we will never change.
The same can be done at local levels and state levels. Some RP voters did do that, some Tea Partiers are trying to do that. The problem is, the Tea Party has been taken over by people who are more interested in scare tactics and begathons.
Makes sense. I'm with you for most of this one too. I actually agreed with RP's foreign policies (we have no business doing what we do overseas), along with most everything else. It's too bad those with agendas feel that they need to press their beliefs on everyone else. That's the thing I liked about RP. You be who YOU want to be... but let everyone else do the same within a framework of government that allows personal freedom and expression. Too many people say, "my way or the highway." That's why the country is as screwed up as it is. "Live and let live" should be the message. But you seldom hear it. I think that's what RP stood for, for the most part.
What are you disagreeing about? That doing these things is not hypocritical, or that his actions don't indicate hypocrisy, but something else? What would that be?
Thesaurus.com came up with these words, are they any better?
I'm pondering the logic, here... "The reason the TP is ineffective, is because it follows the wrong organization...And, the reason they are ineffective, is that they're not controlling the message because they lack organization..."
What you fail to recognize, is that the TP movement is not an organization, it does not follow anyone or anything. It is loosely coalesced around some sensible notions: "We are taxed plenty, our governments are fiscally irresponsible and reckless, and if we don't do something rather quickly, it's going to end in catastrophe".
You are missing the point I'm trying to make. I said, and will repeat YET again, that (I believe it was you who posted it), it WAS an idea born out of frustration. YEP! I'm with you on that! BUT, what happened is that it has been turned in to a colossal joke because now you have people who say they are Tea Party members and all they ask for is donations. I'm not talking about ONE newsletter. I'm not talking about ONE Tea Partier or one group. It's all over, it's rampant. If the Tea Partiers want to be taken seriously, the first thing they need to do is clean up their own house of the little money grubbing leeches who are claiming to be part of them. Until then, not a whole lot of people are going to take them seriously.
Quote:
You can agree with that whether you're a JFK style Democrat or a strict libertarian - or anywhere in between or even nearby. In fact, it's such an obviously true observation, that you're undoubtedly one who thought this long before Santelli's rant on CNBC which gave some people a name to put on a tag.
If you don't like the organizations that spring from among the ranks, which try to be more effective than unfocused energy, then don't donate to them and don't subscribe to their newsletters.
I have given zero dimes to these organizations. I simply started searching for information a few years ago, signed up for newsletters so that I would have a better understanding, and learned, quickly, that these people were not my thing. I thought I had unsubscribed from them all...it wasn't until recently that I started getting bombarded by one of them when the government decided to shut down. Now I get them almost daily. I don't even open them, (well, until today), I just delete them.
Quote:
Just don't go badmouthing people you agree with on the thing that they have in common, rather than the things they do NOT hold in common - which are far more numerous.
The same way you badmouth anyone who supported Ron Paul? You mean like that? I didn't say jack squat to you in regards to those posts, even though I read them. And now you want to ask ME not to express MY opinion? Really?
Quote:
I tolerate the RP types
You called us "crazies", how is that tolerance?
Quote:
the moderates who lack any foundational principles to their views, and even the populists who recognize basic financial stupidity when they see it. I don't badmouth the TP because of that, even though I am far, far from most of them in what I know and believe and understand is true.
Man you know, it really is tiring hearing the pollarizing comments typically made in the beltway. Part of my whole persona on City Data is buying into the all or nothing with us or against us mentality I have been faced with since moving to DC about 14 years ago.
It's just hilarious how lefties call Tea Party folks Klansmen and racists and all this other stuff. I mean based on what exactly? It's so common now that if you have even the slightest issue with the Dem party, then it must be because you hate Obama and if you hate him, then the only reason could be due to skin color. I am not sure how in a supposed "post racial" America who no doubt had its majority white population voting for Obama, we have continued to race bait and fan the flames of intolerance to such an extent.
I do not buy into all of the Tea Party's ideas, but in a nut shell, its about following very strictly the constitution, limiting Federal Gov't power and becoming Isolationist. I think that last part riles up the Left, because they think it means building walls to keep out their future 3rd world voters (it does) and it riles up the Right because they think it means a push to end silly wars over borders and oil in the middle East...and it does.
So one side calls them Klansmen the other side calls them Radicals and lacking sympathy for beloved Isreal...hence IMO the label of a racist party.
Meanwhile to the Right wingers, Obama and his entire party are Communists who want to destroy the constitution. To the Left wingers, anyone on the right is a bible thumping old curmudgeon who hates gays and to both of those lovely groups, the Tea party member is a Klansmen...makes perfect sense huh?
As far I know, every poll I see, tea party members don't want any cuts to Medicare or Social Security.
.
It's astonishing that there are still people out there who don't know that SS and Medicare is paid for by recipients. I guess if you've never had a job, you don't know what FICA is.
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.
