TEA Party 4/15

  1. New Member
    DEADn's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    143
    Rep Power
    149
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    91.33%

    TEA Party 4/15


    Did anyone participate in a TEA party? I went to one in another city. I had never been to one previously so I took my camera to take pictures as well. I put them on a slide show which you can check out. I also put my thoughts on my blog which you can also check out.

    Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket

    my blog
    Thoughts, opinions and little discoveries

  2. New Member
    DEADn's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    143
    Rep Power
    149
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    91.33%
  3. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74320
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.31%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I went to the local one here in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
    •   
       

  4. New Member
    nopeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    270
    Rep Power
    248
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    74.54%

    I don't think people knew exactly what to protest. they were just out in about.

    Get rid of the FED. It's that easy.
  5. New Member
    DEADn's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    143
    Rep Power
    149
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    91.33%

    At the gathering I went to I know people understood what they were protesting because of what the signs said. ONe thing that I thought was odd was that I was 3 youn guys dressed up in suits and ties. I glanced at them every now and then. I wondered if they were like the secret service for the commissioner who was speaking. They did not wear glasses though. I think I knew one of the guys. They could have worked in the courthouse as well. This took place next to the county courthouse.

    I also hear that CNN reporters are trying to paint this as a racist type of gatherings to protest a black president. I don't get that at all but I did tell my wife that I didn't see anyone of other races there except for one indian girl. I wondered if others didn't care about it, didn't know about the rally, or don't support it. Who knows.
  6. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I really wanted to attend one, but there was a work conference I couldn't miss.
  7. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I'm sure there were some well meaning, genuine small government types at some of these rallies. But, given my experience with mine and my brother's experience with his and the general coverage I've seen, it seems these were mostly anti-Obama rallies. Not racists like those *******s at CNN tried to paint them as, but definitely the crowd that conveniently forgot about opposing big spending when Bush was in office and then 'rediscovered' their principles when a Democrat started spending their money. If these people genuinely wanted smaller government they would have been out in force during the previous 8 years as well.
  8. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I'm sure there were some well meaning, genuine small government types at some of these rallies. But, given my experience with mine and my brother's experience with his and the general coverage I've seen, it seems these were mostly anti-Obama rallies. Not racists like those *******s at CNN tried to paint them as, but definitely the crowd that conveniently forgot about opposing big spending when Bush was in office and then 'rediscovered' their principles when a Democrat started spending their money. If these people genuinely wanted smaller government they would have been out in force during the previous 8 years as well.
    You'll probably disagree with me on this, but I have no issues with running deficits to cover a war (I'm not saying the war was right or wrong, just saying war spending). There's a historical precedent for wartime debt going back to the founding of this country. The problem I have are the long term obligations of entitlement programs. Most wars end eventually, which gives the country the opportunity to realistically pay back the money. Entitlement and spending programs rarely ever end, and tend to have unintended consequences that are used to justify further spending. These people don't have a problem with paying taxes and government spending money, they just care how they are being taxed (half the country not paying taxes) and for what (for the benefit of the half not paying taxes and for bailing out failing companies)

    Also, keep in mind the sheer volume of money that has been spent in Obama's first 100 days. He is the antithesis of small government and thus represents everything these people are protesting against. It no different than capitalists in China protesting Mao.
  9. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74320
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.31%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I'm sure there were some well meaning, genuine small government types at some of these rallies. But, given my experience with mine and my brother's experience with his and the general coverage I've seen, it seems these were mostly anti-Obama rallies. Not racists like those *******s at CNN tried to paint them as, but definitely the crowd that conveniently forgot about opposing big spending when Bush was in office and then 'rediscovered' their principles when a Democrat started spending their money. If these people genuinely wanted smaller government they would have been out in force during the previous 8 years as well.
    In a sense, you're right, but I think it was more of a wake-up. People openly see the lack of morals and values in the new administration (not saying they didn't exist in others, but not to this extent) and I think it kind of made people wake up, start reading and researching, and seeing what else is actually going on behind the scenes.
  10. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74320
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.31%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    You'll probably disagree with me on this, but I have no issues with running deficits to cover a war (I'm not saying the war was right or wrong, just saying war spending). There's a historical precedent for wartime debt going back to the founding of this country. The problem I have are the long term obligations of entitlement programs. Most wars end eventually, which gives the country the opportunity to realistically pay back the money. Entitlement and spending programs rarely ever end, and tend to have unintended consequences that are used to justify further spending. These people don't have a problem with paying taxes and government spending money, they just care how they are being taxed (half the country not paying taxes) and for what (for the benefit of the half not paying taxes and for bailing out failing companies)

    Also, keep in mind the sheer volume of money that has been spent in Obama's first 100 days. He is the antithesis of small government and thus represents everything these people are protesting against. It no different than capitalists in China protesting Mao.
    That's my thing, too...It's not just the money that is spent, it's WHERE it's spent.
  11. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    You'll probably disagree with me on this, but I have no issues with running deficits to cover a war (I'm not saying the war was right or wrong, just saying war spending). There's a historical precedent for wartime debt going back to the founding of this country.
    Indeed there is. It is just as destructive as any welfare program is, hence the name WelfareWarfare state. Being against one and not the other is in the end inconsistent at the most fundamental level.

    The problem I have are the long term obligations of entitlement programs. Most wars end eventually, which gives the country the opportunity to realistically pay back the money.
    This was true on commodity standards. Since the advent of paper money war time debt has ostensibly never been repaid. This specific issue has been looked at in detail by Han Herman Hoppe in Democracy, the God that Failed. As social democracies on fiat standards have become the norm wars have become more frequent, broader in scope, bloodier in execution, more expensive, and the accumulated debt has not been paid back but monetized, with war time taxes becoming normalized.

    Entitlement and spending programs rarely ever end, and tend to have unintended consequences that are used to justify further spending.
    As do wars. Past interventions breed future conflicts. Were it not for WWI, WWII might never have happened. Were it not for previous American and British interventions in the middle east, including our carving it up into 'countries', conflicts there might never have erupted or escalated to their current levels. What you say of entitlements is just as true for war, if not more so. An entitlement program can be ended, tough as it may be to do so. A foreigner pissed off because his loved ones were needlessly killed to support the agenda of some foreign power he doesn't give a **** about is a lot harder to erase.

    These people don't have a problem with paying taxes and government spending money, they just care how they are being taxed (half the country not paying taxes) and for what (for the benefit of the half not paying taxes and for bailing out failing companies)
    That was clearly not the implication or thrust of their rhetoric. Nor, even if you are right, are they correct in blaming Obama. The first bail outs happened under Bush, and our current administration economically speaking may as well be that of John McBama. There's no way in hell any politician would let their fat cat banker friends go under so long as they could tax and inflate the money away from the genera population. That has been the nature and direction of the government under all regimes.

    Also, keep in mind the sheer volume of money that has been spent in Obama's first 100 days. He is the antithesis of small government and thus represents everything these people are protesting against. It no different than capitalists in China protesting Mao.
    Keep in mind that the economically minded of us might also point out that in Bush's administration more money was created, printed in other words, than in the entire history of the Republic. That he was lucky enough to catch the tail end of the inflationary boom and was thus able to monetize his spending while Obama is being forced to take directly from the people is irrelevant. The spending was equally out of control and the debt load on the US population was not appreciably less under Bush. He was simply lucky enough to be able to hide most of it be taking indirectly. Our current economic problems are the direct result of he and Greenspan orchestrating a 'soft landing' from the internet bubble. Of course to do so they had to manufacture a bigger bubble and base this one on debt levels not seen in the history of the entire planet. His administration was hardly a gift. If anything it was Clinton times a hundred. Clinton's bubble economy was nowhere near so heavily leveraged.
  12. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    In a sense, you're right, but I think it was more of a wake-up. People openly see the lack of morals and values in the new administration (not saying they didn't exist in others, but not to this extent) and I think it kind of made people wake up, start reading and researching, and seeing what else is actually going on behind the scenes.
    Then they are easily lead morons, as these breaches were just as evident in the last administration. And, if John McCain were in office rather than Obama, most of these Tea Party nitwits would be making excuses for spending on pretty much the same level.
  13. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Indeed there is. It is just as destructive as any welfare program is, hence the name WelfareWarfare state. Being against one and not the other is in the end inconsistent at the most fundamental level.
    Its not inconsistent in the least. Its fundamentally a question of the role of government. One of the primary reasons for having a federal system was for mutual defense in protection of individual liberties. I don't necessarily agree that interventionism abroad is the best mode to achieve this, but it is consistent with the principle of mutual defense this nation was founded upon. On the other hand, there is no constitutional justification for entitlement programs.

    This was true on commodity standards. Since the advent of paper money war time debt has ostensibly never been repaid. This specific issue has been looked at in detail by Han Herman Hoppe in Democracy, the God that Failed. As social democracies on fiat standards have become the norm wars have become more frequent, broader in scope, bloodier in execution, more expensive, and the accumulated debt has not been paid back but monetized, with war time taxes becoming normalized.
    You're scapegoating war for the failures of fiat currency. No debt has essentially been paid back since fiat money came around. The point I was making is that wars have a chance of getting paid back, while entitlements are essentially spiraling debt.

    As do wars. Past interventions breed future conflicts. Were it not for WWI, WWII might never have happened. Were it not for previous American and British interventions in the middle east, including our carving it up into 'countries', conflicts there might never have erupted or escalated to their current levels. What you say of entitlements is just as true for war, if not more so. An entitlement program can be ended, tough as it may be to do so. A foreigner pissed off because his loved ones were needlessly killed to support the agenda of some foreign power he doesn't give a **** about is a lot harder to erase.
    Very good point. Wars do have unintended consequences, but they are a necessary evil in order to protect the liberties of the country's citizens. Again, I'm not advocating any particular war, just the role of government in waging wars.

    That was clearly not the implication or thrust of their rhetoric. Nor, even if you are right, are they correct in blaming Obama. The first bail outs happened under Bush, and our current administration economically speaking may as well be that of John McBama. There's no way in hell any politician would let their fat cat banker friends go under so long as they could tax and inflate the money away from the genera population. That has been the nature and direction of the government under all regimes.
    I'm not sure where you got your information. I know many people that attended them and heard them promoted on talk radio and fox news, and the majority of people I heard about were concerned about: bailouts, stimulus spending, entitlement programs, inflation, and increasing levels of taxation. These was not a pro-Bush/anti-Obama protests. These were anti-government spending protests.


    Keep in mind that the economically minded of us might also point out that in Bush's administration more money was created, printed in other words, than in the entire history of the Republic. That he was lucky enough to catch the tail end of the inflationary boom and was thus able to monetize his spending while Obama is being forced to take directly from the people is irrelevant. The spending was equally out of control and the debt load on the US population was not appreciably less under Bush. He was simply lucky enough to be able to hide most of it be taking indirectly. Our current economic problems are the direct result of he and Greenspan orchestrating a 'soft landing' from the internet bubble. Of course to do so they had to manufacture a bigger bubble and base this one on debt levels not seen in the history of the entire planet. His administration was hardly a gift. If anything it was Clinton times a hundred. Clinton's bubble economy was nowhere near so heavily leveraged.
    I agree with your interpretation of the origins this crisis. The Fed is mostly to blame for getting us here.

    I'm not sure who's "forcing Obama to take directly from the people". The US will be issuing five times more treasury bonds and notes issued this year any other year (which is why I'm shorting a treasury fund ). You seem to be confused and think I'm arguing on behalf of Bush, which is simply not the case. Bush was way too liberal for my taste. This country is on a beeline toward monetary chaos, no matter who may have set the course in that direction, and these tea parties are a way to show that at least some people don't agree with this direction.
  14. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Its not inconsistent in the least.
    Both aggrandize the state, both subvert individual liberty to state mandate, both lead to unsupportable debt. More importantly, both divert and destroy wealth by directing it toward unproductive ends.

    Its fundamentally a question of the role of government. One of the primary reasons for having a federal system was for mutual defense in protection of individual liberties. I don't necessarily agree that interventionism abroad is the best mode to achieve this, but it is consistent with the principle of mutual defense this nation was founded upon. On the other hand, there is no constitutional justification for entitlement programs.
    Like cost plus contracts for defense contractors, or investment guarantees in the form of foreign aid/intervention for corporations?

    You're scapegoating war for the failures of fiat currency. No debt has essentially been paid back since fiat money came around. The point I was making is that wars have a chance of getting paid back, while entitlements are essentially spiraling debt.
    Yet you ignore that before fiat money the ability to fund either perpetually wa equally impossible to come by. Before modern social democracies and specifically before fiat money, entitlement programs were just as restrained as wars were and for the same exact reasons: they destroyed wealth, did so very quickly, and were impossible to fund without dramatically raising direct and very visible taxes on the population.

    Very good point. Wars do have unintended consequences, but they are a necessary evil in order to protect the liberties of the country's citizens.
    This is more arguable than Clay Aiken's sexuality. Out of all the wars fought last century arguably none were to directly protect the US citizens from credible threats to their freedom except WWII, and that war would not have happened had WWI not left Germany so screwed.

    I'm not sure where you got your information.
    I was at my local one, my brother at his across the country, and I watched the coverage. These people were painting themselves as anti tax, anti big government types, and most are clearly not. They would be perfectly happy with a big government were John McCain or Bush at the helm. Which means they don't get the primary reason behind limited government: government powers are general and eventually someone you don't like or agree with will be in office and exercise that power. Ergo the only way to avoid bad consequences is to deny the government the power to begin with, not give it to your guy and stomp your feet and cry when he gets kicked out and the next guy uses the same power in ways you don't like.

    I know many people that attended them and heard them promoted on talk radio and fox news, and the majority of people I heard about were concerned about: bailouts, stimulus spending, entitlement programs, inflation, and increasing levels of taxation. These was not a pro-Bush/anti-Obama protests. These were anti-government spending protests.
    Then explain their consipicuous absence during the Bush years as he spent and spent and spent and spent and spent.

    I'm not sure who's "forcing Obama to take directly from the people".
    It's a natural continuation of policy when monetization no longer works. The wealth that would have been diverted via the Fed eventually needs to be openly taken if the policy is to continue.

    This country is on a beeline toward monetary chaos, no matter who may have set the course in that direction, and these tea parties are a way to show that at least some people don't agree with this direction.
    Then they need to start coming out and demonstrating when Republicans are at the helm too.
  15. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Both aggrandize the state, both subvert individual liberty to state mandate, both lead to unsupportable debt. More importantly, both divert and destroy wealth by directing it toward unproductive ends.

    Like cost plus contracts for defense contractors, or investment guarantees in the form of foreign aid/intervention for corporations?
    You're right about the effects of wars, but my point is that war is a proper role of government, entitlements are not. I'm not carte blanche justifying every war in the last century, but I think you can agree that it is a proper role of government, though there is a time and place for it.

    Yet you ignore that before fiat money the ability to fund either perpetually wa equally impossible to come by. Before modern social democracies and specifically before fiat money, entitlement programs were just as restrained as wars were and for the same exact reasons: they destroyed wealth, did so very quickly, and were impossible to fund without dramatically raising direct and very visible taxes on the population.
    Right. Again the fiat currency is the problem, not the fact that the government wages war. I think that we can agree that fiat currency is the root to both problems. As for entitlements, I don't like them and I think they are unconstitutional with or without a fiat currency.

    This is more arguable than Clay Aiken's sexuality. Out of all the wars fought last century arguably none were to directly protect the US citizens from credible threats to their freedom except WWII, and that war would not have happened had WWI not left Germany so screwed.
    One could definitely make a case for Afghanistan.

    I was at my local one, my brother at his across the country, and I watched the coverage. These people were painting themselves as anti tax, anti big government types, and most are clearly not. They would be perfectly happy with a big government were John McCain or Bush at the helm. Which means they don't get the primary reason behind limited government: government powers are general and eventually someone you don't like or agree with will be in office and exercise that power. Ergo the only way to avoid bad consequences is to deny the government the power to begin with, not give it to your guy and stomp your feet and cry when he gets kicked out and the next guy uses the same power in ways you don't like.
    Then explain their consipicuous absence during the Bush years as he spent and spent and spent and spent and spent.
    The dangers of these policies are front and center now, due to economic realities. During most of the middle Bush years people were so busy getting second mortgages and buying second residences nobody noticed the monetary debasement and increased government spending. Its human nature to not worry about things until they realize they are a problem. Also, keep in mind that just because TARP was a Bush bill, doesn't mean that all these people supported it. Most Republicans and many Democrats in the house voted against funding TARP due to overwhelming lobbying against it from their constituents.

    But you're right, partisanship clouds views on government, however, I don't think these tea parties are 100% partisan. I think the concept of fiscal restraint just sells better to your average republican than your average democrat.

    It's a natural continuation of policy when monetization no longer works. The wealth that would have been diverted via the Fed eventually needs to be openly taken if the policy is to continue.
    I think the natural continuation is just to continue monetizing and switch currencies when it gets untenable. Do you really expect our government to start taking responsibility for a fiat currency? How many votes does that get?

    Then they need to start coming out and demonstrating when Republicans are at the helm too.
    We were going to but Cindy Sheehan, Rosie ODonnell, and Bono beat us to it.
  16. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    You're right about the effects of wars, but my point is that war is a proper role of government, entitlements are not. I'm not carte blanche justifying every war in the last century, but I think you can agree that it is a proper role of government, though there is a time and place for it.
    No, I'm not convinced it's a proper role for the government. An armed population seems to be way more than enough to stymie any attempt at occupation. I see no reason for state backed mass murder, especially when strict standards such as clear and present danger have been essentially abandoned. A good book on the subject is The Myth of National Defense. Historically the armies of kings were used to settle territorial disputes and to conquer new territory, usually with people living there already, one would think with claims to the resources therein as well. As we've morphed into social democracies wars have been ideological in nature and way,, way more bloody and expansive. No, I do not grant that offensive mass murder in the name of nationalism or national security is a given and proper role for government.

    In fact the role of war historically has been to opportunistically expand the power of the state, and then to generalize those special powers, rarely giving them back. The war of 1812 left us with a central bank, tariffs, federal taxation. The Civil war left us with government grants for land, business subsidies, fiat money, an income tax, and conscription. Similar power grabs extend through the Mexican war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. Our current war gave us the PATRIOT Act, the DHS and now its subsidiary ERB, and suspension of Habeaus Corpus, pre emptive strikes as a normal tool of war, national guard call ups, and further militarization of the civilian police force. What's the next war going to leave us with, assuming we end this one without losing everything?

    War, in the end, is just the exercise of state power over a foreign people to accomplish political ends. The peoples often have no quarrel, the competing states do, and use their power to whip up the populace into thinking people who are no threat are a dire threat, barely human, and justifiably killed. I'd wager none of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens who were killed in this current war had any aims higher than living their lives as comfortably as possible, and I seriously doubt any of them were ever even a distant threat to my safety or the safety of any other American. As such, their mass murder in the name of regime change, spreading democracy, or whatever, is not justified. War by and large is nothing more than mass murder in the name of state power.

    Right. Again the fiat currency is the problem, not the fact that the government wages war. I think that we can agree that fiat currency is the root to both problems. As for entitlements, I don't like them and I think they are unconstitutional with or without a fiat currency.
    Fiat currency is the means to the end: perpetual war and wealth transfer. Look at where social security, the mother of all wealth transfer programs, began: Bismark, in Prussia. Another good work on the equivalence between the two policies is The Cry for Security by Bob Murphy.

    The dangers of these policies are front and center now, due to economic realities. During most of the middle Bush years people were so busy getting second mortgages and buying second residences nobody noticed the monetary debasement and increased government spending. Its human nature to not worry about things until they realize they are a problem. Also, keep in mind that just because TARP was a Bush bill, doesn't mean that all these people supported it. Most Republicans and many Democrats in the house voted against funding TARP due to overwhelming lobbying against it from their constituents.
    The question remains though: would these people be out there protesting if it were Barak McCain proposing it instead of John McBama? I seriously doubt it. Where were they when Bush signed off on the prescription drug benefit that further swelled our debt? The spending on the wars is no secret, where were they when those costs became impossible to ignore?

    But you're right, partisanship clouds views on government, however, I don't think these tea parties are 100% partisan. I think the concept of fiscal restraint just sells better to your average republican than your average democrat.
    I'd believe that if, when in power, they actually exercised that restraint. As a matter of recent and past historical record the only spending Republicans get truly worried about is spending proposed by Democrats.

    I think the natural continuation is just to continue monetizing and switch currencies when it gets untenable. Do you really expect our government to start taking responsibility for a fiat currency? How many votes does that get?
    You can't just switch currencies. Fiat currency itself rides on faith and momentum alone, continuing only because people believe that those green slips of paper are indeed money themselves and because the past bears out that fait. **** with that and the whole system collapses. I have no care in the world how many votes such policy considerations get, their impact is real and does not change just because the population at large doesn't understand the details.

    We were going to but Cindy Sheehan, Rosie ODonnell, and Bono beat us to it.
    They were protesting the war. Where were the protests against increased spending, money creation, and taxation?

    EDIT: Also note, their recirocal hypocrisy in not protesting Clinton's over sears war acts.
  17. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7019

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post



    They were protesting the war. Where were the protests against increased spending, money creation, and taxation?

    Every Ron Paul rally from 2006

    Republicans responded by not showing up in the 2006 elections.

    It simply isn't fashionable as a Hollywood fueled anti-war protest.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  18. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Also, historically conservatives do not protest nearly as much as non-conservatives (with the obvious exception being abortion issues). They normally have to work and raise families. Democrats have a nice stable of hippies and college students who they pay to have protests.
  19. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    Every Ron Paul rally from 2006

    Republicans responded by not showing up in the 2006 elections.

    It simply isn't fashionable as a Hollywood fueled anti-war protest.
    True. Although Ron runs as a Republican, you'd havd to go back to the time of Taft to find a significant amount of Republicans in public office who thought along the same lines. He's Old Right through and through.

    I swear I almost jizzed when I saw college kids carrying signs calling for an end to The Fed. It's fashionable now to be old right to a certain extent. I was ten years ahead of my time. If I wear in college now, I'd be getting mad *****.
  20. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Also, historically conservatives do not protest nearly as much as non-conservatives (with the obvious exception being abortion issues). They normally have to work and raise families. Democrats have a nice stable of hippies and college students who they pay to have protests.
    True. Sadly enough, this is a social dynamic that I think is painfully obvious. What's needed is for people of Paul's ilk to find a nest of larval libertarians and mobilize them.
  21. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    True. Sadly enough, this is a social dynamic that I think is painfully obvious. What's needed is for people of Paul's ilk to find a nest of larval libertarians and mobilize them.
    I think Obama and the Congress is doing plenty to strengthen the Republican party. When your agenda is over the top, its easy to contrast and develop an alternative. I think Obama would have a much better chance of seeing a second term if was less radical, as he wouldn't be losing the independents and republicans who jumped ship to vote him in.....but I'm certainly not complaining.
  22. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I think Obama and the Congress is doing plenty to strengthen the Republican party.
    That's what worries me. Once people realize how radical a lefty he is they're gonna swing back to what they think is their only other option, a Republican party that is likely to be more openly fascist than ever before as it seems the neo con/militarist attitude types with the fetus empowerment types own what's left of that party. Which means if we don't see significant economic recovery before that happens we're going to war again somewhere else and the waste will move us further toward total destruction. The pattern of history plays out again, I just thought I'd be lucky enough to miss the part where the USA collapses like a dynamited building. I'm not so sure I will anymore.
  23. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    That's what worries me. Once people realize how radical a lefty he is they're gonna swing back to what they think is their only other option, a Republican party that is likely to be more openly fascist than ever before as it seems the neo con/militarist attitude types with the fetus empowerment types own what's left of that party. Which means if we don't see significant economic recovery before that happens we're going to war again somewhere else and the waste will move us further toward total destruction. The pattern of history plays out again, I just thought I'd be lucky enough to miss the part where the USA collapses like a dynamited building. I'm not so sure I will anymore.
    I'm much more worried about liberalism leading to fascism than anything else. The left is doing all they can to send this country back to the stone age through environmental regulation and "progressive" taxation. Pretty soon a majority of people in this country will not even pay taxes, which essentially makes the half paying the taxes their slaves.
  24. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.52%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I'm much more worried about liberalism leading to fascism than anything else. The left is doing all they can to send this country back to the stone age through environmental regulation and "progressive" taxation. Pretty soon a majority of people in this country will not even pay taxes, which essentially makes the half paying the taxes their slaves.
    This has always been the case though. There have always been those who are net recievers of taxes and those who are net payers. I see a blind spot in your view of this though, and that is specifically the right wing use of the oldest tool of state aggrandizement to date: war. The powers liberals would grab in order to 'level the playing field' or however the term it are no less dangerous when right wingers grab them to 'keep us safe'. Both are cries for security against largely imaginary threats, and based on the same satanic deal, "Give me your freedom and I'll keep you safe." Whether it's safety from the need to work to support yourself or safety from some country and its leader who is no threat to us in reality, it's the same cry for the same actions and what is essentially the same policy.
  25. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    This has always been the case though. There have always been those who are net recievers of taxes and those who are net payers. I see a blind spot in your view of this though, and that is specifically the right wing use of the oldest tool of state aggrandizement to date: war. The powers liberals would grab in order to 'level the playing field' or however the term it are no less dangerous when right wingers grab them to 'keep us safe'. Both are cries for security against largely imaginary threats, and based on the same satanic deal, "Give me your freedom and I'll keep you safe." Whether it's safety from the need to work to support yourself or safety from some country and its leader who is no threat to us in reality, it's the same cry for the same actions and what is essentially the same policy.
    I don't see war as on par with the tyranny of liberalism. There always has been and most likely always will be vocal opposition to war in representative democracies. In other words, war is not a permanent institution, but rather a transient state in our country. I know you can say that one war leads to another, but ultimately foreign policy has changed and will continue to morph in the future.

    Just look at the programs that are some primary goals of the liberal agenda:

    -Socialized health care. Expanding government to control the health and welfare of our citizens in addition to enlarging the government to never before seen levels. Try undoing that beast of a program after its implemented. Canada and UK can't despite extremely vocal opposition.

    -Radical Environmental Policy. The government is talking about limiting the amount of energy that can be produced in the US through the "cap and trade" tax. A Government that controls the means of production (electricity and power) controls the nation. Add to this the army of regulators that will be required to police the new laws and you'll see another unprecedented growth in government.

    -Card Check. This was abandoned on fear of a filibuster recently, but is scary nonetheless. The government would mandate that if unions can convince 50% employees to sign on the dotted line the business is now unionized. No discussion, no vote, no secret ballot. Then if the union cannot agree to terms with the business, the government gets to arbitrate....ie tell the business the terms of employment for the employees the business choose to hire. This undermines everything capitalist and is essentially socialism as it allows for government control of private industry.

    There is no limit to the left's tyrannical aspirations and every compromise that is made with the left sends this country spiraling toward despotism.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Tea Party Video
    By jim623 in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 03:13 PM
  2. Joining the party.
    By Dracoy in forum Controlled Labs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 06:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in