The "tea party" movement...doomed to fail?
- Thread starter JimJimmyJames
- Start date
tieguy
Banned
is there a deadline by which it has to win or fail by?
moreluck
golden ticket member
Gibbs says they have the votes......some guy who's the official Dem. vote counter says they are 4-6 short. The Budget office, as of this minute, has not told the cost of it........how can a person decide yes or no until they've heard the actual cost?? Apparently the Dems want it passed no matter what it costs !!! That's just stupid & blind. (no offense to blind people)
It probably depends on how you define failure. If the republican establishment can harness some of that tea party energy to help them return to power so they can continue spending like drunken sailors, I'm sure Mitch McConnell and the boys will consider the movement to be a roaring success 
.
.
tieguy
Banned
It probably depends on how you define failure. If the republican establishment can harness some of that tea party energy to help them return to power so they can continue spending like drunken sailors, I'm sure Mitch McConnell and the boys will consider the movement to be a roaring success
I think the tea party raises some good points. I don't think they necessarily support Bushs form of "compassionate conservatism". I like them as a watchdog. OI don't know if the drunken sailers reference works. Did you see the deficit projections for the Obama administration tony posted? I'd take the drunken sailers instead.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Jim,
Good link. Well done my friend!
A bit long but a 1992' piece by the late Murray Rothbard proves rather interesting in history and looking forward from nearly 20 years ago now. As it starts from the old right which in truth was a classical liberal (Jeffersonian) perspective and then shows how the so-called right moved away from Jefferson individualism and towards Hamiltonian and a neo-European nationalism here in the States. Jones link to the Micheal Lind piece lending some importance here as one of Lind's major works from 1997' is titled "Hamilton's Republic." A Hamilton devotee he is.
And speaking of Lind's piece, he does have a point about Rand and her influence but let it be said again, Rand was no libertarian at all. Rand would have in fact welcomed the Iraq invasion even on the premise of oil as she believed all resources should be exploited (word used here not in it's vulgar sense) for economic gain. Rand was by no means an anarchist and had she seen Avatar, she would have cheered the RNA Corp. and it's mercenary army on it's qualities of advancing economic growth and profit. Her idea of economics was capitialism but she was not for a true free market in which all ideas, even communal or co-operative are welcome as long as aggression or fraud in not used to advance the cause. Any cause that wasn't solely about profit or for pure gain, especially for the individual was not tolerated. Rand held to the winners and losers ideal of capitialism where someone has to win and someone has to lose. Yet in a true free market where 2 individuals come together, they make an economic exchange that is driven by an understanding by both parties that such exchange will equally benefit both. For Rand, capitalism was a one size fits all and it was that or nothing whereas more and more libertarians today are embracing true individualism and the right of individuals to contract with one another under any condition they so desire. That is true free market and the foundation of laissez faire whereas Rand would require a state appratus to enforce compliance to a single economic model, capitialism in this case. So much for that competition many so-called capitialist claim they champion and thus the fallacy they advocate a true free market!
Hamilton hated the french physiocrats and their laissez faire who opposed his nationalist mercantilism as the physiocrats envisioned a society of individualist entrepeneurs and craftsman whereas Hamilton and the mercantilist envisioned a business and property heirarchy from the top down much as if in a neo-fuedalism type society. This laissez faire attitude that influenced the Jeffersonian ideal was a major factor in the conflict that existed between these 2 American factions to this day with Hamiltonians having basically won. Until Wilson and then FDR, the democrat party was the home of the Jeffersonian, physiocrat tradition but all that is for the most part lost now and now both parties uphold that nefarious tradition. The only difference comes in goodies given away to various classes that represent voting blocks but the end results are often the same no matter who holds the reins of power.
The libertarianism that is creeping into the republican ranks is not the libertarianism of Rothbard, Karl Hess or even Samuel E. Konklin not to mention the likes of say Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker. Case in point is the Alliance of the Libertarian-Left website and fair stern warning to my more GOPish friends here, Don't click on that link, just trust me. Assume the worse in name alone and you'll feel better for it. These mentioned libertarians above if you will are all anti-State, individualist who would see no reason at all to involve themselves in hijacking the GOP from Lind and his cohorts in the first place. What Lind does fear IMO and rightfully so is that in embracing what Kevin Carson calls "vulgar libertarianism" or "limited gov't thinking" or Jeffersonian as opposed to Hamiltonian, the chance is some might begin to think and then logic takes over and they take concepts to their logical conclusions and Lind and company fear more than anything what in those questions and answers they may discover. From Lind's POV their concerns are completely justified!
Good link. Well done my friend!
A bit long but a 1992' piece by the late Murray Rothbard proves rather interesting in history and looking forward from nearly 20 years ago now. As it starts from the old right which in truth was a classical liberal (Jeffersonian) perspective and then shows how the so-called right moved away from Jefferson individualism and towards Hamiltonian and a neo-European nationalism here in the States. Jones link to the Micheal Lind piece lending some importance here as one of Lind's major works from 1997' is titled "Hamilton's Republic." A Hamilton devotee he is.
And speaking of Lind's piece, he does have a point about Rand and her influence but let it be said again, Rand was no libertarian at all. Rand would have in fact welcomed the Iraq invasion even on the premise of oil as she believed all resources should be exploited (word used here not in it's vulgar sense) for economic gain. Rand was by no means an anarchist and had she seen Avatar, she would have cheered the RNA Corp. and it's mercenary army on it's qualities of advancing economic growth and profit. Her idea of economics was capitialism but she was not for a true free market in which all ideas, even communal or co-operative are welcome as long as aggression or fraud in not used to advance the cause. Any cause that wasn't solely about profit or for pure gain, especially for the individual was not tolerated. Rand held to the winners and losers ideal of capitialism where someone has to win and someone has to lose. Yet in a true free market where 2 individuals come together, they make an economic exchange that is driven by an understanding by both parties that such exchange will equally benefit both. For Rand, capitalism was a one size fits all and it was that or nothing whereas more and more libertarians today are embracing true individualism and the right of individuals to contract with one another under any condition they so desire. That is true free market and the foundation of laissez faire whereas Rand would require a state appratus to enforce compliance to a single economic model, capitialism in this case. So much for that competition many so-called capitialist claim they champion and thus the fallacy they advocate a true free market!
Hamilton hated the french physiocrats and their laissez faire who opposed his nationalist mercantilism as the physiocrats envisioned a society of individualist entrepeneurs and craftsman whereas Hamilton and the mercantilist envisioned a business and property heirarchy from the top down much as if in a neo-fuedalism type society. This laissez faire attitude that influenced the Jeffersonian ideal was a major factor in the conflict that existed between these 2 American factions to this day with Hamiltonians having basically won. Until Wilson and then FDR, the democrat party was the home of the Jeffersonian, physiocrat tradition but all that is for the most part lost now and now both parties uphold that nefarious tradition. The only difference comes in goodies given away to various classes that represent voting blocks but the end results are often the same no matter who holds the reins of power.
The libertarianism that is creeping into the republican ranks is not the libertarianism of Rothbard, Karl Hess or even Samuel E. Konklin not to mention the likes of say Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker. Case in point is the Alliance of the Libertarian-Left website and fair stern warning to my more GOPish friends here, Don't click on that link, just trust me. Assume the worse in name alone and you'll feel better for it. These mentioned libertarians above if you will are all anti-State, individualist who would see no reason at all to involve themselves in hijacking the GOP from Lind and his cohorts in the first place. What Lind does fear IMO and rightfully so is that in embracing what Kevin Carson calls "vulgar libertarianism" or "limited gov't thinking" or Jeffersonian as opposed to Hamiltonian, the chance is some might begin to think and then logic takes over and they take concepts to their logical conclusions and Lind and company fear more than anything what in those questions and answers they may discover. From Lind's POV their concerns are completely justified!
diesel96
Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/tea-party-march-16-protes_n_501352.html
Tea Party organizers reported that somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people gathered today in Washington D.C.
But the Democratic National Committee estimates placed the number of attendees at a mere 300, an amount that they later mocked and used as evidence that "the air is out of the tea party balloon,"
Disgruntled Tea-Partiers, welcome to the Coffe Party Movement... however check your dumb juvenile signs, anger, hatred, bigotry, lies, ranting /raving at the door, and be prepared for civil, well mannered, respectful discussions that sort out fact from fiction....and then decide for yourself, not what your Party Lines tell you......BTW, don't be alarmed, there might be minorities in the movement, but have no fear, they don't bite...
Tea Party organizers reported that somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people gathered today in Washington D.C.
But the Democratic National Committee estimates placed the number of attendees at a mere 300, an amount that they later mocked and used as evidence that "the air is out of the tea party balloon,"
Disgruntled Tea-Partiers, welcome to the Coffe Party Movement... however check your dumb juvenile signs, anger, hatred, bigotry, lies, ranting /raving at the door, and be prepared for civil, well mannered, respectful discussions that sort out fact from fiction....and then decide for yourself, not what your Party Lines tell you......BTW, don't be alarmed, there might be minorities in the movement, but have no fear, they don't bite...
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Now comes this coffee party USA group claiming to be non-partisan. Frank Ross of BigGovernment.com did a great job proving that the creator of this “coffee party” business was really a big Obama operative. No thanks to the Old Media we quickly found out that Annabel Park, the coffee party originator, is an Obama operative and works for the New York Times as a “strategy analyst.” So, it was created by an Obama operative and member of the Old Media, but this was conveniently absent from early reporting on the coffee party phenomenon.
http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2...troturfing-continues-msm-looks-the-other-way/
The Raleigh Coffee Party meeting was a great success. 30 people joined us to discuss issues important to them in a civil and respectful manner. We broke into 4 groups and a wide variety of issues were discussed. We look forward to setting up multiple coffee parties in the Raleigh area on March 27th.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-419863?ref=feeds/oncnn
Well, which is it a totally free grassroots group or a pawn of the democrats ?
http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2...troturfing-continues-msm-looks-the-other-way/
The Raleigh Coffee Party meeting was a great success. 30 people joined us to discuss issues important to them in a civil and respectful manner. We broke into 4 groups and a wide variety of issues were discussed. We look forward to setting up multiple coffee parties in the Raleigh area on March 27th.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-419863?ref=feeds/oncnn
Well, which is it a totally free grassroots group or a pawn of the democrats ?
tieguy
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/tea-party-march-16-protes_n_501352.html
Disgruntled Tea-Partiers, welcome to the Coffe Party Movement... however check your dumb juvenile signs, anger, hatred, bigotry, lies, ranting /raving at the door, and be prepared for civil, well mannered, respectful discussions that sort out fact from fiction....and then decide for yourself, not what your Party Lines tell you......BTW, don't be alarmed, there might be minorities in the movement, but have no fear, they don't bite...
I did not realize that Harry Reid was part of the tea party movement. Why if good old Harry the bigot had not told Obama he was white enough to run why there would not be a tea party movement.
If bigotry really does run rampant throughout the tea party movement then who better then good old Harry Reid to lead the way. Or are we still under the impression that the white liberal carpetbagger is somehow immune to acts of racism and bigotry?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
diesel96
Well-Known Member
The Tea Party's narrative claims they represent the average American. The Coffee Party's Movement are average Americans that distance themselves as far as possible from that unsubstantiated claim.
When you have no bullets in your gun, you fall back to an old news story spurred on by the right wing blogasphere. ahh
....Your still upset the black community gave Harry ( and his history for being pro-minorty) a pass for speaking the truth, arent' ya ?Similar threads
