In a very strange development, Rasmussen (a pollster I don´t trust, by the way) has found that the "Tea Party" would do better on the generic congressional ballot than would the Republican Party. However, both would still lose to the Democrats (you knew I´d work that in):
"Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP."
@Ben "In a very strange development, Rasmussen (a pollster I don´t trust, by the way)..."
Why do you not trust Rasmussen? Let me guess: Someone in the Obama camp told you not to and you´re simply following orders. You´re too heady in your political alignments. Sometimes you just need to explore and decide for yourself vs listening to what a political pundit says and letting him/her/it make up your mind for you.
"...the "Tea Party" would do better on the generic congressional ballot than would the Republican Party."
At the same time, fewer Americans than ever are identifying themselves with Republicans.
As Conservatives, we have tended to vote Republican because the party´s message and agenda have more closely matched our own, more so than that of the Dems. That’s not to say that the Republican party is a perfect fit for most of us, because it isn’t. McCain’s ascendency to the GOP presidential candidate over more conservative contenders marks an excellent “at odds” example Conservatives have recently had with Republicans, in general.
The hypothetical Tea Party political-party is seen as a more conservative alternative to a Republican party that many perceive to have become more liberal in recent years. We will either see a more Conservative Republican party in the near future, or we will see disgruntled conservative party members splinter from both well-established parties and form a third, more conservative, political party.
"Why do you not trust Rasmussen? Let me guess: Someone in the Obama camp told you not to and you´re simply following orders."
OK, that´s just about as fair as my guess that you do like Rasmussen because his reports often tell conservatives *exactly* what they want to hear. The man is only objective when polling an election, which can actually prove him wrong, and otherwise is a consistent outlier with every other poll and consistently tilted to the right. Which makes perfect sense if you consider that Rasmussen has advocated for conservative politics, written for the rabid right-wing conspiracy kook website World Net Daily, and been employed by George W. Bush.
"You´re too heady in your political alignments. Sometimes you just need to explore and decide for yourself vs listening to what a political pundit says and letting him/her/it make up your mind for you."
Again, you´re being very insulting without know anything about me. Sure, I listen to pundits, but I make sure to verify what they say against independent sources. Sometimes *you* need to evaluate what you really know before you start pulling things out of your ass and presenting them as fact.
"...the "Tea Party" would do better on the generic congressional ballot than would the Republican Party.
Is anyone surprised?"
Yes. See, the "Tea Party" isn´t really real.
"The hypothetical Tea Party political-party is seen as a more conservative alternative to a Republican party that many perceive to have become more liberal in recent years."
Well yeah, I mean, that´s why the Bush tax cuts passed by one vote, cast by Dick Cheney, right? ´Cause the Republicans got so darned liberal!
"We will either see a more Conservative Republican party in the near future, or we will see disgruntled conservative party members splinter from both well-established parties and form a third, more conservative, political party."
Bet on the latter, as I rub my hands together and cackle with glee ...
“OK, that´s just about as fair as my guess that you do like Rasmussen because his reports often tell conservatives *exactly* what they want to hear.” Sorry if that got under your skin. I’m just calling it as I see it. I could give other examples, but I think you can admit that you are anti-[person/thing] for nothing more than its affiliations, regardless of how detached that person/thing is from the realm of politics. So, you can see how easily it is to glean this affinity when the person/thing is politically related.
“Yes. See, the "Tea Party" isn´t really real.” Yes, I know. That’s why I used the word “hypothetical” in this sentence: “The hypothetical Tea Party political-party is seen as a more conservative alternative…”
“Well yeah, I mean, that´s why the Bush tax cuts…” That was actually a very conservative moment.
“Bet on the latter, as I rub my hands together and cackle with glee ...” You may have to cackle after 2012. The poll is very revealing as to why… There isn’t a Tea Party at the moment, so if you add both Tea Party and Republican votes you get a 41% vote, compared to the Dems’ 36%. Conservatives and Repubs understand that introducing a third party would split the vote and potentially give the Dems a majority in the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot afford to do this at a time when Obama must be voted out of office to save our country. With that in mind, you can expect to see Conservatives and Repubs unite for at least 2 more dances. We’re out to save our country from socialism and a $12-trillion debt.
Don’t get me wrong… Obama is a great community organizer, but we really need a President in the office.
"I think you can admit that you are anti-[person/thing] for nothing more than its affiliations, regardless of how detached that person/thing is from the realm of politics. So, you can see how easily it is to glean this affinity when the person/thing is politically related."
I´m not "admitting" it because it isn´t true. You presume to know an awful lot about me that you don´t really know, and that´s what we call "prejudice."
I gave you my reasons that I don´t like Scott Rasmussen. Must I tell you that even though I don´t agree with him on much, I can´t help but like and respect Mike Huckabee in order for you to realize that I don´t simply hate all Republicans or conservatives? Do I have to spell out how Eisenhower´s one of my favorite presidents? Do I have to show you the glowing tribute I wrote to a life-long Republican who, working on a campaign opposed to then-Democrat David Duke, exposed him for the vile racist that he is?
No, I suspect that you and several others here have a mental filter that prevents you from noticing that I don´t simply hate every politician with an "R" after her or his name.
As far as the Tea Party, you asked if anyone is really surprised that people preferred it to the Republican Party. Since it isn´t real, and you thus know nothing about it besides the name and whatever you would project it to be from the Tea Party rallies, yes, I find it surprising that conservatives would choose it over the GOP, which they presumably know all about (except for the fact that both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower all had czars).
For example, if someone were to ask *me* if *I* would prefer the Tea Party over the GOP, I´d have a few questions. Like, would its leadership be more of the Ron Paul mold, or more of the Michele Bachmann mold? Obviously there is a wide gulf of difference between those two, and I´d want to know if I was supporting principled Libertarianism, or racist nationalism with a dash of vague anti-tax anger and plenty of anti-government conspiracy theories.
I haven´t experienced any instance where tea party members have been accused of being libertarians. That´s not to say there aren´t any.. I just haven´t experienced it. And I am pretty outspoken as a libertarian. It´s been my experience that the tea party supporters are Republicans. Not that libertarians don´t agree with the tea party protests from a financial standpoint, because we obviously do. What we don´t agree with about the tea party protests are the religious connotations displayed by many of the rednec... er Republicans who attend them.
If you meet a tea party protester who claims to be a Libertarian.. kindly offer that they might be better served to join the Constitutionalist Party, because that party is pretty much in line with the Libertarian party, except that they choose to claim that our Constitution somehow declares that the United State of America is a Christian Nation.... even though the only mention of religion in it is a declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Perhaps you´ve met people who bash libertarians but, those people don´t understand what libertarians stand for, nor do they understand what they claim to stand for.
As for Ben.. he understands the difference. In fact... he supports much of libertarian ideology. He´s a liberal and we both know that about him. The difference is that I know him to be more of a classical liberal than a modern liberal on a good many issues. Classic liberals, btw, are what libertarians were called before the term libertarian was coined.
Don´t take me wrong though... Ben and I disagree quite often and often quite seriously. But in the end, even when we don´t agree, I know he has put objective thought into the issue at hand and I have far more respect for that than I do someone who parrots what their chosen political gurus tell them to think, even if it does match my thoughts. To me... Ben is a worthy adversary in debate and his views are thought provoking, whether I agree with them or not. Unlike the typical tea party argument of "NO MORE SOCIALISM!!!!" when the protester doesn´t even understand the difference between socialism, communism, capitalism, et al.
In closing.... I have to agree with your last sentence. It boggles my mind how anyone can think that by spending more than they earn can somehow create prosperity.
BB, why don´t you write a biography and sell it? If nobody buys it, go make a friend and then invite them over for a few beers. When they arrive, lock the door to your trailer and force them to listen to all your self-righteous condescension of others. After they die from being bored to death, start a blog dedicated to your bent and off-the wall opinions.
Whatever you decide to do, just please STFU with your "let me tell you about my irrelevant life stories and opinions that nobody gives a damn about" posts, already.
Tea-party members protest two things: 1) Higher taxes 2) Bigger governments
If you or any other so-called Libertarian endorses either, then you´re just poseurs. The Tea Party movement isn´t about Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, black, white, Martians, or Smurfs. It´s about the two issues that people from all walks of life or backgrounds can unite together to protest.
Quit the mud-slinging and quit pretending to know what you´re talking about.
there are too many people out there who actually support higher taxes. The question is not so much do you support higher taxes but what do you want to cut back in return for lower taxes. On that I think there needs to be a sensible debate. The problem is a lot of people don´t really think through the cascading effects of some of the things they want to do away with.
Regarding the smaller/larger government issue I would rather have an efficient government than a ´small´ one. I want politicians that fly cattle class and drive themselves to work. I want an end to corporate handouts, no bid contracts and the vast majority of subsidies. I want tax payer dollars spend frugally and with an eye to the future, and when I say future I am looking beyond the next election.
At the same time I want a government big enough to protect the rights and interests of its citizens - big enough to terrify anyone or anything that encroaches on those rights. I want a regulatory framework strong enough to limit the ability of the powerful to screw the powerless. When companies have a primary mandate to maximise shareholder return someone else has to to look out for everybody else. I support regulation to ensure safe products, safe workplaces, fair pay and fair business practices among other things and I make no apology for that. When these regulations have to be enforced I expect action that will leave the guilty party waking whimpering in the night for years to come.
It wasn´t that long ago that there were significant parties lobbying against a regulation that would limit the work day of a child to 12 hours on the basis it would be harmful to families. We see automotive manufacturers deciding it is cheaper to pay settlements when someone gets hurt or killed rather than fix the problem that would prevent them getting hurt or killed. Don´t get me started on what the lack of regulation in the financial industry has spawned.
Don´t get me wrong, I´m by no means in favour of totalitarianism by a long way but a good strong regulatory environment benefits all citizens, not just the ones with money and power.
Well, the Libertarians have actually been protesting higher taxes and bigger government way longer than the Tea Party has existed. In fact, while the TP seemed to spring into repugnant, angry, bitter, ignorant and racist existence with Obama´s inauguration, the Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under (duh-duh-DUUUHHHH!!!) George W. Bush.
As a proud Lib pinko commie, I´d just like to add that I don´t want to raise anybody´s taxes. I´d like to see us enforce our tax laws and stop the beautiful American patriots who off-shore their income in a deplorable attempt to avoid paying their fair share, and to cut wasteful spending wherever it exists in our government (particularly in needless defense programs, which the Obama administration has already begun to do). I also endorse back-to-the-workforce welfare that has been shown to save taxpayer dollars in a trial run that was done in Massachusetts and which is done in many other countries.
You know what would also allow American citizens to keep more of the money they earn? A single-payer health care system. The portion of your taxes that would go to health insurance would be lower than any health insurance company would ever, ever charge for a premium by virtue of the purchasing power of the U.S. government on behalf of its 300 million-plus citizens.
You put forth a sensible argument for what you deem as necessary or ideal. Collectively, I would have to say that I agree with 90% of the details you expressed.
“The question is not so much do you support higher taxes but what do you want to cut back in return for lower taxes.” I agree with that statement, but I think that cutting-back is only half the argument. Obama boasts a series of budget cuts that promise to trim $17-billion from the budget, next year. Half of these cuts are in defense (a tangent I will reserve for a different thread…) http://www.politico.com/...
Facially, $17-billion seems like a lot of money. But when you compare that amount to the amount being spent and the proposals of additional money to be spent, the two amounts are so disproportionate that $17-billion might as well be $17 for all the “savings” impact it will have on the overall budget.
While Congress patted themselves on the back for passing a stimulus bill with a said price-tag of $789-billion, that number is a lot of hocus-pocus to cloak the real price of the stimulus Obama said we *had* to pass, or else we would face unemployment soaring above 8%.
“Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.” http://blog.heritage.org/...
In his first 100 days in office, he’s spent and will cost the USA more money than *every* previous administration *COMBINED*.
“Being called out by 60 Minutes´ Steve Kroft is the least of President Obama´s problems. Indeed, he has about 10 trillion others. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Obama budget will run a rather scary $1 trillion annual deficit for the next decade. That´s $2.3 trillion more than Obama´s people have predicted. Numbers like that are a bit too rich even for the blood of members of the president´s own party” http://www.nbcnewyork.com/...
As I was saying, cutting back on existing spending is only half the battle. Preventing Obama and the Democrat Congress from dreaming up new ways and places to flush our tax-dollars is other (and most significant) half. When the Russians and Chinese are trying to school Obama and his cronies on the principles of capitalism, you know we’re in deep manure.
“Regarding the smaller/larger government issue I would rather have an efficient government than a ´small´ one.” The words “efficient” and “government” present an oxymoron. Aside from our military and space-programs, can anyone show me where our government is the least bit “efficient”? Social Security and Medicare are on a downward slide to bankruptcy and the US Postal Service will beat both of them to it.
“The General Accounting Office (GAO) has announced that the U.S. Postal Service is in danger of financial insolvency. Last year, the Postal Service lost $2 billion. This year, it´s lost $7 billion and is on track to continue that trajectory.” http://www.politicsdaily.com/...
This is the same government that wants to take over and nationalize healthcare. Given the government’s track-record for efficiency, I’d say that we’re all screwed if that were to ever come to fruition.
Since having an efficient government is too much to ask for, *minimal* government is the key.
“I want politicians that fly cattle class and drive themselves to work. I want an end to corporate handouts, no bid contracts and the vast majority of subsidies. I want tax payer dollars spend frugally and with an eye to the future, and when I say future I am looking beyond the next election.”
“At the same time I want a government big enough to protect the rights and interests of its citizens - big enough to terrify anyone or anything that encroaches on those rights.” I don’t think the size of government is required to enforce laws. Perhaps increase budgets to existing law-enforcement and regulatory agencies, but definitely not increase the size of government.
As for more regulation… I think regulation with the intention of defining right vs wrong would be appropriate; regulation as defined by right vs left is not. Limit and regulate the hours and ages of children eligible to work as set forth by our Child Labor Laws? Absolutely. Limit and regulate the thermostats and energy consumption of citizens as proposed by Obama? Absolutely not.
Conservatives, Tea Baggers, Reagan-Republicans, Libertarians, and Blue Dog Democrats all believe that as a free and independent society, our government is of the people and for the people --- not of the elite and for the special interests. We believe that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and should be allowed to do so, for better or worse. By virtue of our individual choices and decisions, we should all be free to succeed or fail accordingly. No bail-outs and no penalizing the successes of others to subsidize them. If you fail, you dust yourself off and try again. None of this, “Well I’ve failed… were is my bailout?” Those that succeed shouldn’t be forced or compelled to contribute to the “bail out fund” for losers.
We believe in personal responsibility and accountability. People that work hard and ultimately become successful as a result of their sweat and labor should not be burdened with the weight of others that do not. Nor should the government intervene and promote this.
Again, I agree with most of your stances. Our views on government, regulation, and taxation are mostly compatible. The pro-Obama crowd is the group that greatly opposes the Tea Party participants. They attempt to twist their opposition to higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government into one of race or anti-government. The vast majority of these people so blindly support their Messiah and their political agendas that they *would* welcome higher taxes and fewer rights if it allowed them to continue believing the illusion that their Chosen One is “as advertised”.
Headline: “Libertarians cordially invite you to a Tea Party” “WASHINGTON — America’s third largest party is urging Americans to join millions of libertarians and other advocates of economic freedom at one of thousands of “Tea Parties” being held on April 15. The “tea party” concept started with the Libertarian Party of Illinois (LPI) who began organizing a 2009 Tax Day ‘Boston Tea Party’ in Chicago back in December of 2008 and created a Facebook group for it on Feb. 10, 2009, according to the LPI. Nine days later, CNBC’s Rick Santelli, broadcasting from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange, popularized the concept.” http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/...
“That´s not to say there aren´t any.. I just haven´t experienced it. And I am pretty outspoken as a libertarian.” Well, in light of the last post and link, I would say that you’re a sorely misguided and misinformed wannabe-Libertarian. How can you possibly represent yourself as the member of a movement or party when you don’t even know the ideologies or beliefs it represents or on which it was founded?
“What we don´t agree with about the tea party protests are the religious connotations displayed by many of the rednec...” Let me get this straight: Libertarians are claiming credit for coming up with the idea and concept of the modern-day Tea Party…, yet “they” don’t agree with tea party protests. Uh, huh… I see.
Quit insulting real Libertarians by falsely representing yourself as one. And quit speaking about them as if you have any clue to what they represent and stand for; your post, above, provides clear evidence that you don’t.
"Well, the Libertarians have actually been protesting higher taxes and bigger government way longer than the Tea Party has existed."
See above post and links to BB.
"In fact, while the TP seemed to spring into repugnant, angry, bitter, ignorant and racist existence with Obama´s inauguration, the Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under (duh-duh-DUUUHHHH!!!) George W. Bush."
Tsk, tsk... Ben, you should be more wary of the people you co-sign for. BB just got pwned for his false statements and fraudulent self-misrepresentations. Co-signing his statements opens you up to the same. Don´t be a BSer just because your affiliates are BSers.
"You know what would also allow American citizens to keep more of the money they earn? A single-payer health care system. The portion of your taxes that would go to health insurance would be lower than any health insurance company would ever, ever charge for a premium..."
Show me. The Dems can´t even convince all the memebers of their own party of that garbage.
"...by virtue of the purchasing power of the U.S. government on behalf of its 300 million-plus citizens."
You mean by virtue of the raised taxes on its 300-million-plus citizens *plus* their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren, and any other decendant that person may have.
"In a time-honored tradition older than the United States itself, Jon Kueny and a handful of fellow Libertarians plan to gather today to protest government taxation.
Today is the deadline to file federal income tax returns, and Kueny is marking the occasion by picketing outside the New Port Richey Post Office, 6550 Nebraska Ave., and handing out tea bags, symbolic of a more historic tax revolt in Boston Harbor.
The Libertarians´ protest, though staged at post offices around the country, will pale in significance to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, when Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty protested King George III´s tea taxes by dumping crates of the stuff into the harbor."
And you should have been around for some of the arguments BB and I had while you were on sabbatical or whatever.
As far as the costs of a single-payer system: "“If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage” (“Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States."
"If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved.”
The above tea-party protest referenced was carried out by Libertarians in 2000. Republicans (or people who used to call themselves Republicans until they got tired of being laughed at) have hijacked what was once about taxes and turned it into parades of racism, xenophobia, radical anti-abortionism and above all else, ignorance (http://www.youtube.com/...
"In fact, while the TP seemed to spring into repugnant, angry, bitter, ignorant and racist existence with Obama´s inauguration, the Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under (duh-duh-DUUUHHHH!!!) George W. Bush."
Lets examine that statement.
You said “*WHILE* the [Tea Partiers] seemed to sprint into repugnant, angry, bitter, ignorant and racist existence…”
Wow. You really hate Tea Partiers, huh?
According to you: While TPs were burning crosses in black people’s and immigrant’s front lawn during Obama’s inauguration, “the Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under (duh-duh-DUUUHHHH!!!) George W. Bush”
And to defend this statement, you give us a news article about a Tea Party that was thrown in 2000.
2000? Uh huh…
When I told you to be wary of the statements you co-signed, I didn’t expect you to go bankrupt on your own bull$hit credibility.
The Tea-Party you quoted was held in 2000. Bush didn’t take office until 2001.
Lurker agreed with BB’s BS post (see above). This is expected because… well, because he’s Lurker. Enough said. How about you? Will you accept and preach BS, as well? Where did the Libertarian party protest Bush’s tax plan? Bush granted one of the largest tax cuts. I don’t see how/why Libertarians would object to such a thing. However, you claim they did, so please share when this happened, or admit that you are just as guilty for spreading false information as BS is. Errr… I meant, “as guilty as BB is”.
I simply pointed out that you´re full of your backside excrement.
And you haven´t posted anything to prove otherwise. Go spin up another tail about Libertarians. How about one where they slay the Obama dragons? That bit of fiction would be most entertaining to the jobless as they´re wondering what happened to the stimulus bill that was supposed to create jobs.
Haha, I only posted that to show that Libertarians had been doing tea-party protests long before the current gang of misinformed, easily manipulated idiots came along. If you want Bush-era tea partiness, I´m happy to oblige:
As libertarian activist Chad Peace wrote: "In 2007, the modern tea party movement took shape, in a vastly different form than it now presents itself. Spurred by an impending recession, a government overrun by deception and corruption, and an unprecedented expansion of government under eight years of “conservative” leadership, the first modern day tea partiers had positive causes of action: honesty, respect for the rule of law, and protection of the rights of the smallest minority; the individual." http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Now, admit that you were wrong and that you´re as guilty of spreading B.S. as you accuse others of being ...
I think it´s common knowledge now the Tea Party has been hijacked by the right. It seriously hit me when a bunch of Tea Party members were applauding Sarah freakin´ Palin at one of her book events. I mean, seriously people? In fact I posted an article on one of the Tea Party co-founder´s thoughts on where the movement has gone.
It would interesting to see you argue a point for more than two posts before trotting out the personal attacks. Perhaps we´ll all get to see that some day.
As shutting up... not gonna happen. I tend to use my personal experiences to back up my opinions because to me, at least, they reflect real life experience. If you don´t care to read about my boring and mundane life, kindly skip over my posts and move on. The choice is yours you know, because even if I could, I wouldn´t force anyone to read what I write.
A question for you CA.... If TP protesters only care about high taxes and large government, why do they need these signs at their protests??
"It Is When People Forget God That Tyrants Forge Their Chains."
"Speak for Yourself, Obama! We ARE a Christian Nation!"
"Bring Family Values Back From Liberal Perversions"
"God Has Given Us a Christian Nation"
"Original American Conservatism: Christianity"
"Oh, Yes We Are a Christian Nation!"
"What Has a Muslim Nation Done for You Lately?"
"Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-God Veteran. A Right-Wing Extremist Who Won´t Apologize"
What, may I ask, do any of these slogans have to do with high taxation or large government?
You´ll notice.... that the above contains no personal attacks or "mud slinging". Please try to respond in the same manner..
As for your claims about the Libertarian Party and my affiliation and understanding of it. I understand the party quite well. I also understand the difference between what is called a small l libertarian and a big L libertarian. Small l libertarians include people such as Ron Paul or any person who has libertarian leanings but who affiliates themselves with a political party other than the Libertarian Party. Ben, for example, is a small l libertarian. I, on the other hand am a big L Libertarian, because I am registered as such and am a card carrying, donating member of the Libertarian Party which, btw can only be found here http://www.lp.org. The links you provided are to small l libertarian sites, which can include any mixture of republicans, democrats, independents, etc.
Those sites are all run be the non profit think tank, Reason Foundation. It was founded in 1968 and is dedicated to the advancement of libertarian ideology. But again... it is not the Libertarian Party. Keep that in mind, if you can.
So let´s see.... I was born in 1968, the same year the reason foundation was, and I´m 41 years old, so it stands to reason that libertarians have been organizing against Republican and Democrat rule for at least 41 years, one could say. Incidentally, Reason has been promoting libertarian ideals for longer than the Libertarian Party has been in existence. That´s just a bit of trivia for you.
You claim that Libertarians have taken credit for creating the Tea Party movement. That statement is patently false. Some libertarians have done so and the Libertarian Party does support the movement and it acknowledges that the Tea Party protests are libertarian inspired. But the real truth is that Tea Party protests are not the brainchild of the Libertarian Party.
As the first link I provided proves, the TP protests have become a movement dominated by right wing, religious Republicans. Perhaps there are some Libertarians in the mix, but as I stated earlier, I have not experienced them. To be fair though, I haven´t attended one of these events and on top of that, the Libertarian Party has actually had speakers in attendance at a number of them so with that being said, I must admit that I misspoke.
One last thing.... this is excerpted from one of the links Ben provided and is a quote from one of the orgiginal founders of the Tea Party movement...
“At some point, reality began piercing my passion. The tea party boat started becoming a wagon of whiners. Propelled by the moving mouths on TV and the talking heads of such ironically named organizations such as the “American Family Association”… the movement lost its focus.” he continues. “A movement founded on the principles of independent analysis, it has become a yelling fest for punch-drunk cynics armed with incoherent talking points.”
“Now, admit that you were wrong and that you´re as guilty of spreading B.S. as you accuse others of being ...”
I’ll admit that you’re trying to manipulate, again, and that you still are guilty for disseminating BS.
[Snicker, snicker] Poor Ben… If people were only as dumb as he wished they were, he could rule the world.
Ben, we covered this once before. On this *exact very subject*, I’ll say the same thing today that I said on 4/18/2009 when I addressed the “tea party” you’re mentioning again.
Jono to CArnold: “Why didn’t you support the Tea Party in 2007 when it was a true grassroots effort?”
CArnold to Jono: “Because it was a Ron Paul campaign/publicity ploy. I was pulling for Fred Thompson. Grassroots effort? No… It was a “Ron Paul for President” effort. Bush tax cuts were still in effect and taxes weren’t an issue because they didn’t have to be. As much as the anti-Bush crowd loves to pound his name in the dirt, there is no denying that Bush was the President during the height of America’s prosperity. The IRS was reporting record revenues and Dow Jones was consistently breaking all-time record highs. The left can talk all the BS they want to, but the proof is in the numbers. … Secondly, Ron Paul had more negatives than positives, in my opinion. Sure, he pledged to abolish the IRS. Sounds nice… but not realistic. I’m not suggesting that taxes be abolished altogether. There are actually some great programs sponsored by the federal government that depend on our tax dollars. But when we’re spending millions on manure research and pumping carbon-dioxide into the ground and the other 900 earmarks that were in the Obamanable Bill that passed Congress *before* they even had a chance to read it, it infuriates me and millions of others.”
Propagandize much, Ben? This “tea party” was nothing more than a campaign rally meant to bring attention to the Paul camp and get people excited about his candidacy. Convince yourself it’s a “tea party” if you want to.
Read through that link I provided. I find it hilarious how you support a “tea party” if there are campaign speeches about how Paul would be better than Bush, but if the Tea Party targets Obama’s frivolous and out-of-control spending, you accuse them of being racists. You’re so in lock and step with your failed political agendas that you won’t even allow yourself to see things for what they are. Self hypnosis and willful blindness.
“I tend to use my personal experiences to back up my opinions because to me, at least, they reflect real life experience.”
Your purported “experience” got you mega-PWNED and made you come off as a liar and a blow-hard that doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
Want more examples?
Re-read this quote: “America’s third largest party [Libertarian Party] is urging Americans to join millions of libertarians and other advocates of economic freedom at one of thousands of “Tea Parties” being held on April 15.”
See that date? April 15.
Now, let’s revisit a post you made on April 17, 2009 --- two day after the Tea Party: “it seems to anyone with a brain that these tea parties were, in reality, a retaliation against the race of our current President.” (6th post at the link, below) http://www.shortnews.com/...
You claim to be a Libertarian, yet you accuse your own party (also the organizer of the Tea Party) of being racists. That leads one to question: Are you trying to tell us you’re a racist? OR are you a wanna-be Libertarian that doesn’t know what he’s talking about and has painted himself into a very awkward corner because he’s exposed himself to be a liar and blow-hard? If I were to bet on the correct answer, I’d cash out my 401K and put a huge wager on the second answer.
“…why do they need these signs at their protests…” Because they have the right to. Is any other explanation necessary? Atheists can display their signs and billboards during the Christmas holidays, but Christians can’t hold signs professing their own beliefs? What kind of “Libertarian” are you?
“As for your claims about the Libertarian Party and my affiliation and understanding of it. I understand the party quite well.” What?????? Lol. You’ve certainly done a tremendous job displaying your level of “understanding”. Try pushing that on someone else. I’m not buying it, nor do I care to hear it. There are far too many inconsistencies and contradictions with your claims and your posts for anyone to *not* notice the fiction. The best recourse for you would be to retire your screen-name and come back under a brand-new identity. Seriously – your credibility is shot all to hell and back. Just don’t go around telling lies again and you’re new identity will be okay.
“You claim that Libertarians have taken credit for creating the Tea Party movement. That statement is patently false… the real truth is that Tea Party protests are not the brainchild of the Libertarian Party” Then why does your party, per a press release on its own official site, claim that it is? Ohhhh, boy. You just don’t know when to quit, do you? Are you purposely trying to get pwned again? Look above at the link you provided for me. That’s the link to the Libertarian Party’s official site, right? Read what’s on their site and labeled as being a “Press Release”:
“WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party is urging Americans to join millions of libertarians and other advocates of economic freedom at one of thousands of “Tea Parties” being held on April 15. The "tea party" concept started with the Libertarian Party of Illinois (LPI) who began organizing a 2009 Tax Day ‘Boston Tea Party’ in Chicago back in December of 2008 and created a Facebook group for it on Feb. 10, 2009, according to the LPI. Nine days later, CNBC’s Rick Santelli, broadcasting from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange, popularized the concept." http://www.lp.org/...
Do those two paragraphs sound familiar? The fact that it’s a Press Release means that it’s an article that was written and officially released by the Libertarian Party. So, please tell us how “patently false” your own party is with its claims.
BB, I don’t personally know you but I’m sure that you’re a nice guy and you’re a well-intentioned person. I could be wrong on my assumption… or not. I don’t know. One thing that I *do* know is that you’re not “as advertised”. I would much rather have someone to debate with than someone whose posts must continuously be sifted through for BS. I don’t like communicating with Hugo for that exact reason. If you can’t be honest with us, I don’t care to converse with you or debate these or any other issues. Exposing you for a fraud and beating you up for it isn’t fun. I would much rather have a challenging and up-beat debate than have to go through this crap. The best advice I can give you is, in the future, just keep it real.
"You know I´m not going to let you pass off a campaign rally as an "anti Bush and Bush´s taxes protest"."
Will you allow me to directly quote a Ron Paul supporter, once more, on what he had to say about that Tea Party? You seem to change the rules on ... what´s the expression? "The whim of a hat." Once more, with feeling:
"In 2007, the modern tea party movement took shape, in a vastly different form than it now presents itself. Spurred by an impending recession, a government overrun by deception and corruption, and an unprecedented expansion of government under eight years of “conservative” leadership, the first modern day tea partiers had positive causes of action: honesty, respect for the rule of law, and protection of the rights of the smallest minority; the individual."
-- Chad Peace
And on what planet is this not personal:
"You’re so in lock and step with your failed political agendas that you won’t even allow yourself to see things for what they are. Self hypnosis and willful blindness."
"Will you allow me to directly quote a Ron Paul supporter, once more..."
I went to the source and read his rant. He starts off giving the 2007 "Ron Paul For President" campaign speech (your quote). He later goes off on what seems to be a tangent for recognition for his work with the original tax parties.
What does this guy want to do? Copyright the word "Tea Party"? Does he think that Ron Paul supporters are the only ones that don´t want/like higher taxes? He claims that "he" originated the modern-day tea party. The Libertarians claim they conceived the idea. I say, "who gives a crap?" The movement is successful and transcends all politcal parties, genders, races, and classes. To try to make it a "Libertarian thing" or a "Republican thing" is to create partisan lines in a very ubiquitous and well-embraced movement. This movement is bigger than any one party or one person. He´s going to have to grow up and accept the fact he´s not considered the Tea Party´s "Leader", nor will he ever be.
Ben, just take a look at the video you linked. What did you see in it? Better yet, what did you *NOT* see in it? That "tea party" was clearly a "Ron Paul for President" rally. Nothing more, nothing less. The people were all chanting, "Ron Paul" and they were all holding signs that said "Ron Paul". Not one sign said anything about taxes, war, or any of the things that the sole supporter spoke about.
"And on what planet is this not personal..." Sorry if you took it personally. It was just an observation. I felt it was worth noting your selective condemnations and the lack of objectivity in your condemnations.
I believe I said in a different thread a long time ago, you cant go to a Tea Party and knock everything you see.
I went to an Anti-War protest (about five or six years ago, when I had time for fun stuff.) and every fringe "Lefty" nutjob was there. Save the Trees, End suffering in Somalia, Stop Nuclear Power, it went on and on and on. Because I was against us playing Global Policeman meant I was against Nuclear Power? Hell no.
TEA means "Taxed Enough Already." Stick to that when you are bashing them. Dont try to find these fringers or people associated with them and try to knock them for that and then say "they´re all the same!"
You have people showing up hoping to find like minded people as them to also build support for their cause.
I will give TEA some credit, whenever a "conservative" would show up and try to plug himself, he would get booed off the stage when it was alerted that they voted for the bailout. The TEAs would start chanting "part of the problem." They do watch who tries to sneak in, at least sometiems.
"The movement is successful and transcends all politcal parties, genders, races, and classes"
99 percent of those Tea Partiers are going to vote Republican in 2012, I guarantee it. And whoever they vote for is going to be the same big-government conservative like Bush, because the American political system is a fraud and a sham. Both parties are owned by the same elite interests, making money off your backs. So 2012 comes around, and you have a choice between a Bilderburg member that supports eugenics, economic warfare and global governance, and a CFR member that supports foreign expansion, domination, and global governance, who ya gonna pick???
“Again, I´ve made every point I set out to make and have nothing more to say.”
In an earlier post, you said: “…while the TP seemed to spring into repugnant, angry, bitter, ignorant and racist existence with Obama´s inauguration, the Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under (duh-duh-DUUUHHHH!!!) George W. Bush.”
To back up this statement, you presented me with a video link to a Ron Paul campaign rally, and to a guy who helped put it together. I said that the so-called “tea party” was a “Ron Paul for President” campaign rally. It was not different than any other campaign rally run during the primaries in which prospective candidates all vied for the honor to represent their respective party. You, on the other hand, swear up-and-down that it was a bonofide tea party. Fine. I suppose it’s not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that we interpret things differently.
But I want to bring special attention to the part where you said, “Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under… George W. Bush.”
You do know that Ron Paul is a Republican, don’t you? Not Libertarian? I just wanted to point that out because you still haven’t shown any of us where “Libertarians were protesting higher taxes and bigger government under… George W. Bush.” Links to a Republican’s campaign rally don’t count.
“Now, admit that you were wrong and that you´re as guilty of spreading B.S. as you accuse others of being ...”
You´ve taken this debate in the direction of making personal insults so for that reason, I´m going no further with you in this topic.
I´ve done my due diligence in trying to find out who actually first conceived of the T.E.A. party idea and as near as I can determine, Chad Peace and a friend of his seem to have concocted it in 2007 in honor of the original Boston tea parties anniversary.
In the end, it doesn´t really matter who lays claim to the idea, even if it´s the Libertarian Party of which I´m a member. I don´t like that they took credit for it, but I also understand that every party has to market itself to the masses.
Either way, the Tea Parties have become nothing more than what Double Take so accurately described them as and that´s the reason I find fault with them. Just as I find fault with my own party for endorsing them simply for publicity. But again I don´t control the party, I simply endorse it and no one can ever agree with everything another person or group does.
But as I said at the beginning of this post, I´ll waste no more of my time inviting your bitter, hateful, presumptive personal attacks on myself and others.
I don´t mind admitting I´m wrong and I don´t even mind when someone attacks my ideas (ask Ben) but the cheap trailer house shots are simply uncalled for. Perhaps you can refrain from taking that dirt road in future debates.
Oh and... just so you will have some personal information about me the next time you get ready to attack, I did live in a trailer house for about three months once while my wife and I were separated. We never divorced and will be joyfully celebrating 24 years of marriage this coming April. I also stayed in a trailer house for about two months with a friend while starting up my business in a new town and looking for a place for my wife and I. (I´ll always be grateful for his hospitality.) We now have a beautiful, 110 year old home we have restored and while it´s not in a fancy development with all sorts of cool homeowners association restrictions.. it is a very comfortable place in a historic district which allows us the opportunity to meet and befriend neighbors from just about all walks of life. We like it here, but then, we don´t measure our friends by the size of their homes or bank accounts. We measure them by the size of their hearts and minds.
Well, the beauty is everyone still has a choice whether they want to live under an association. There are people out there who actually WANT their lives and property micro-managed and believe that conformity is key to happiness. To those people, I say knock yourselves out, as long as I´m no part of it. However, being under city ordinance and building codes is much less of a choice, and I have much more issues with that, and what I can or cannot do or build on my property.