Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're out of your mind.
The TP is an adverse reaction to the neocons, not a part of them.
Yes, it's my crazy ideas again:
- The owner of an asset is the entity that controls it
- A communist is someone who believes in the principles defined in the Communist manifesto
Wow, when I write it down and read it even I think I'm completely nuts...
No you don't. Think, that is. You didn't read either academic definition (not that I'm suggesting they are absolutely correct on each point) and that makes you one of the willfully ignorant. Frankly, I don't care how you define Communism, you've shown yourself to be a partisan and unwilling to consider opinions which challenge your own. That's sad and not a prescription to consider anything you post as anything but your opinion.
Split from what?
The only ones that are running are the neo-cons.
There is no divide in the Tea Party....
I'm sure we all have different morals, however we are all in cohesion with the notion the Constitution is the law of the land - especially the Bill of Rights.
In theory we're not even a political party we're the defenders of liberty and we're defending a document - those who oppose the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the political parties.
It's your defiance that makes you political.
Which is why the vast majority of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress voted to extend the Patriot Act.
I think the problem is, and Oddball can correct me if I am wrong in representing his point, that it is more correct to say that the TPM is a result of the Bush administration. The GWB admin gave the TPM an elan. Then Obama came along with even more spending and the TPM was in full swing.You're out of your mind.
The TP is an adverse reaction to the neocons, not a part of them.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Complete April 18th, 2011 USA Poll Tables.pdf
See Page #18. Only 32% of the Tea Party support cuts to Military spending.
Looks like to me the Tea Party has plenty of Neocons as part of their ranks.
You should see Page #17 when you have a chance too.
I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.
The Tea Party isn't a distinct party, it's the conservative base of the Republican party making an attempt at rebranding to distance itself from its apathy and acquiescence during the Bush era.
As such, the Tea Party Express lady's position will prevail (though other groups seemed miffed that she let the cat out of the bag so early):
The Tea Party will support whoever wins the GOP presidential nomination - - even if that person is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the chairwoman of the Tea Party Express told Fox News.
"Whoever the Republican nominee is will have to have the support of the Tea Party movement, the entire Tea Party movement," Chairwoman Amy Kremer said.
Yes, it's my crazy ideas again:
- The owner of an asset is the entity that controls it
- A communist is someone who believes in the principles defined in the Communist manifesto
Wow, when I write it down and read it even I think I'm completely nuts...
No you don't. Think, that is. You didn't read either academic definition (not that I'm suggesting they are absolutely correct on each point) and that makes you one of the willfully ignorant. Frankly, I don't care how you define Communism, you've shown yourself to be a partisan and unwilling to consider opinions which challenge your own. That's sad and not a prescription to consider anything you post as anything but your opinion.
My God man are you even reading the discussion? I'll recap for you. You presented definitions of socialism, I pointed out those are my definitions exactly with the point that the definitions specifically refer to government ownership and I pointed out that the true owner of an asset is the entity which controls it. And that is why the Democrats are socialist, everything they fight for is government control over the economy and everything in it. How could I have made that argument if I didn't both read and grasp the definition?
You can disagree with me and make an argument, but you didn't. I directly addressed your points, you completely did not address mine. It is you who aren't reading or grasping the discussion.
That would be correct.I think the problem is, and Oddball can correct me if I am wrong in representing his point, that it is more correct to say that the TPM is a result of the Bush administration. The GWB admin gave the TPM an elan. Then Obama came along with even more spending and the TPM was in full swing.You're out of your mind.
The TP is an adverse reaction to the neocons, not a part of them.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Complete April 18th, 2011 USA Poll Tables.pdf
See Page #18. Only 32% of the Tea Party support cuts to Military spending.
Looks like to me the Tea Party has plenty of Neocons as part of their ranks.
You should see Page #17 when you have a chance too.
Too many think GWB was a neocon. Sure, he was propped up by many neocons, but he was a disappointment to many of us. So, he turned out not to be all that good of a neocon.
Anyway, as I don't like speaking for others, if I am wrong about what Oddball was saying about why and how the TPM started, I hope he corrects me.
Just trying to facilitate communication, here, by perhaps identifying misunderstandings.
I think the problem is, and Oddball can correct me if I am wrong in representing his point, that it is more correct to say that the TPM is a result of the Bush administration. The GWB admin gave the TPM an elan. Then Obama came along with even more spending and the TPM was in full swing.
Too many think GWB was a neocon. Sure, he was propped up by many neocons, but he was a disappointment to many of us. So, he turned out not to be all that good of a neocon.
Anyway, as I don't like speaking for others, if I am wrong about what Oddball was saying about why and how the TPM started, I hope he corrects me.
Just trying to facilitate communication, here, by perhaps identifying misunderstandings.
No you don't. Think, that is. You didn't read either academic definition (not that I'm suggesting they are absolutely correct on each point) and that makes you one of the willfully ignorant. Frankly, I don't care how you define Communism, you've shown yourself to be a partisan and unwilling to consider opinions which challenge your own. That's sad and not a prescription to consider anything you post as anything but your opinion.
My God man are you even reading the discussion? I'll recap for you. You presented definitions of socialism, I pointed out those are my definitions exactly with the point that the definitions specifically refer to government ownership and I pointed out that the true owner of an asset is the entity which controls it. And that is why the Democrats are socialist, everything they fight for is government control over the economy and everything in it. How could I have made that argument if I didn't both read and grasp the definition?
You can disagree with me and make an argument, but you didn't. I directly addressed your points, you completely did not address mine. It is you who aren't reading or grasping the discussion.
You wrote, "Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Rather then arguing the definition of words, why don't you give me an example of anything that Democrats have actually supported during the Obama administration that is not further government control over the economy. Since they are not socialist and they are centrist, they should be pretty split. But I'm only asking for one thing that is not socialist central economic planning that they proposed or actually supported. Go.
I wrote:
"Here's an academic definition quoted from "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms; see:
"Socialism: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson
"Socialism
A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes. Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties, mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism."
Now, you explain how you conclude Obama and the Democrats are socialists.
That would be correct.
And Shrub was a total neocon...Lots of idiotic and endless domestic spending and expansion of bureaucracy at home, lots of military empire abroad.
Moreover, if you're going to take one poll about one aspect of the movement and try to use it to paint a picture of the overall movement, you're either incredibly simpleminded or willfully dishonest.
In the case of Mudbutt, I'll be going with the latter.
Mudbutt is nothing, if not willfully dishonest.Split from what?
The only ones that are running are the neo-cons.
There is no divide in the Tea Party....
I'm sure we all have different morals, however we are all in cohesion with the notion the Constitution is the law of the land - especially the Bill of Rights.
In theory we're not even a political party we're the defenders of liberty and we're defending a document - those who oppose the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the political parties.
It's your defiance that makes you political.
Which is why the vast majority of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress voted to extend the Patriot Act.
A vast majority?? there are only like 15 in congress and they all shot it down. Republicans split..
The progressives overwhelmingly voted for it and the progressive asshole Obama signed it.
Hell that document grants authority to rip a persons soul out their chest ...
No libertarian would EVER vote "yay" for such bullshit...
You used the poll to paint with a broad brush and stereotype...And I called your narrow wet-behind-the-ears ass at it.That would be correct.
And Shrub was a total neocon...Lots of idiotic and endless domestic spending and expansion of bureaucracy at home, lots of military empire abroad.
Moreover, if you're going to take one poll about one aspect of the movement and try to use it to paint a picture of the overall movement, you're either incredibly simpleminded or willfully dishonest.
In the case of Mudbutt, I'll be going with the latter.
I just used that poll as an example to a larger point. Just about every other poll reflects the point I've made. As does the voting by the Tea Party Caucus.
Or are you going to try and sell me that their vast support for the Patriot Act was them defending liberty?
As I have been part of it since it started, I know that is not true.I think the problem is, and Oddball can correct me if I am wrong in representing his point, that it is more correct to say that the TPM is a result of the Bush administration. The GWB admin gave the TPM an elan. Then Obama came along with even more spending and the TPM was in full swing.
Too many think GWB was a neocon. Sure, he was propped up by many neocons, but he was a disappointment to many of us. So, he turned out not to be all that good of a neocon.
Anyway, as I don't like speaking for others, if I am wrong about what Oddball was saying about why and how the TPM started, I hope he corrects me.
Just trying to facilitate communication, here, by perhaps identifying misunderstandings.
The Tea Party in it's current form is not a reaction to the GWB administration.
....
He voiced our position, he didn't start it..... It's modern roots can be found from Rick Santelli on February 19, 2009.
....
The rest, and no offense, is just what you want to believe and has little basis in reality..... The Tea Party in it's original form can be traced back to Ron Paul and it was a very small group, however it has since been hijacked by Fox News among others.
The issue with the Tea Party is that a lot of them have no idea what the federal budget actually entails. They believe the government is spending way too much money and that should end. The question then comes what to cut and by how much. However, you have plenty of people who somehow believe that cutting waste, NPR, and foreign aid will result in a balanced budget. Which is why it comes as no surprise why so many people support such a measure.
If more people understood the direct implications of such a move, just like with not raising the debt ceiling, they wouldn't likely support it.
You can't have a movement that doesn't want to see cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, doesn't want to raise taxes, and expect to have a balanced budget. It's simply not possible.
I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.
If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?
Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?
If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?
In full seriousness and honesty, it will depend on what Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers advise.
I think the problem is, and Oddball can correct me if I am wrong in representing his point, that it is more correct to say that the TPM is a result of the Bush administration. The GWB admin gave the TPM an elan. Then Obama came along with even more spending and the TPM was in full swing.
Too many think GWB was a neocon. Sure, he was propped up by many neocons, but he was a disappointment to many of us. So, he turned out not to be all that good of a neocon.
Anyway, as I don't like speaking for others, if I am wrong about what Oddball was saying about why and how the TPM started, I hope he corrects me.
Just trying to facilitate communication, here, by perhaps identifying misunderstandings.
The Tea Party in it's current form is not a reaction to the GWB administration. It's modern roots can be found from Rick Santelli on February 19, 2009. The Tea Party in it's original form can be traced back to Ron Paul and it was a very small group, however it has since been hijacked by Fox News among others.
The issue with the Tea Party is that a lot of them have no idea what the federal budget actually entails. They believe the government is spending way too much money and that should end. The question then comes what to cut and by how much. However, you have plenty of people who somehow believe that cutting waste, NPR, and foreign aid will result in a balanced budget. Which is why it comes as no surprise why so many people support such a measure.
If more people understood the direct implications of such a move, just like with not raising the debt ceiling, they wouldn't likely support it.
You can't have a movement that doesn't want to see cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, doesn't want to raise taxes, and expect to have a balanced budget. It's simply not possible.
A vast majority?? there are only like 15 in congress and they all shot it down. Republicans split..
The progressives overwhelmingly voted for it and the progressive asshole Obama signed it.
Hell that document grants authority to rip a persons soul out their chest ...
No libertarian would EVER vote "yay" for such bullshit...
You're trying to equate Libertarian with Tea Party Caucus. Furthermore, there's quite a bit more than 15.If the Tea Party Caucus truly stands against big government and for constitutional rights, members of the Tea Party Caucus would have voted against renewal of the Patriot Act yesterday. Thats not what happened, though. Instead, almost every member of the Tea Party Caucus voted for the big government spying law.
Out of the 47 current members of the caucus, only 7 voted against the renewal of the Patriot Act. Most of the Tea Party Caucus supported the abuses of big government, and helped in an attack against our constitutional rights. It was up to other members of the House of Representatives to take a stand against big government powers. The effort to pass H.R. 514 failed.
Fourty four out of the 52 Republican members the official 'Tea Party Caucus' voted to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act on February 8th.
Seven out of the 26 Republican Congressmen who voted NO on the Patriot Act yeterday are listed on Michelle Bachmann's official 'Tea Party Caucus' list.
The seven were Roscoe Bartlett [MD],Rob Bishop [UT], Paul Broun [GA], Tom Graves [GA], Kenny Marchant [TX], Tom McClintock [CA], and Denny Rehberg [MT].
Doug Lamborn of Colorado, another Tea Party Caucus member, is one of five Republicans who did not vote on the bill.
The official published list posted on Bachmann's website includes 52 members. The list has not been updated since July 21, 2010. Some reps may consider themselves aligned with Tea party type values, but for one reason or another, refrain from joining the list.
The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.
The measure passed Monday night on a vote of 275 to 144, two fewer than it received last week. But this time, no two-thirds super-majority was required for passage, only a simple majority. Twenty-seven Republicans joined most Democrats on Monday to vote "no," while 65 Democrats joined with most Republicans to support the measure.
You used the poll to paint with a broad brush and stereotype...And I called your narrow wet-behind-the-ears ass at it.
Now, get back to your bosco.
You wrote, "Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Rather then arguing the definition of words, why don't you give me an example of anything that Democrats have actually supported during the Obama administration that is not further government control over the economy. Since they are not socialist and they are centrist, they should be pretty split. But I'm only asking for one thing that is not socialist central economic planning that they proposed or actually supported. Go.
I wrote:
"Here's an academic definition quoted from "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms; see:
"Socialism: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson...
