Tea Party Persecution...Why?

[bendog]

You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want? The issue is government doing it.

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

HUH? WTF?

If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.

You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it, then you go berserk.

.

of course they're a govt. They can only enforce their covenants by going to court and asking the govt to use it's police power to invalidate/prohibit a property use.

If I were a libertarian, which I am not, I'd be concerned that my right to contract to purchase property within the restriction, from another private citizen, would be infringed. Further, if the seller could not convey to me any property he owned freely with only natural law use impediments, there'd be a restriction on his right to property.

And WTF woudl you call me a Nazi, when you're the one suggesting property rights be limited? JFC, you people want it both ways.

 

[bendog]

You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want? The issue is government doing it.

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have. The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property. But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values. Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.

Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.

Most Tea Partiers are. The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced. But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.

They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.

And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything. And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.

That is all the Tea Party asks for. For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The founders were not libertarians. Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.

 

[Rebelitarian]

You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....

Since they were hijacked by undesireables mayI direct you to the Constitution Party.

We're serious and we're on the ballot.

Constitution Party > Home The Official Website

Constitution Party Promotional Video

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SobkISNrY]Constitution Party Promotional Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Redfish]

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have. The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property. But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values. Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.

Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.

Most Tea Partiers are. The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced. But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.

They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.

And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything. And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.

That is all the Tea Party asks for. For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The founders were not libertarians. Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.

they were closer to libertarians than to liberals, progressives, or conservatives. They were all about individual freedom and individual responsibility. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people---we do not have that today.

 

[Flopper]

Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR. Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right. Other sides have principles too. A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done. I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's. And you're not a victim.

The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history. Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs. The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government. They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.

That just reveals the ever growing dependency of government found with each new generation over the last. They may talk about a fiscally responsible government with less taxes, until it means receiving less of what they "believe" they simply just can't do without.

If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon. Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.

 

[Contumacious]

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

HUH? WTF?

If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.

You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it, then you go berserk.

.

of course they're a govt. They can only enforce their covenants by going to court and asking the govt to use it's police power to invalidate/prohibit a property use.

If I were a libertarian, which I am not, I'd be concerned that my right to contract to purchase property within the restriction, from another private citizen, would be infringed. Further, if the seller could not convey to me any property he owned freely with only natural law use impediments, there'd be a restriction on his right to property.

And WTF woudl you call me a Nazi, when you're the one suggesting property rights be limited? JFC, you people want it both ways.

If the ABC Property managemnt does not want children in their property and you bought and own property there then YOU have consented to their restriction.

Going to court to force you to abide or else is a proper use of the courts and the police powers.

.

 

[Rebelitarian]

If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon. Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.

Right vote out both parties and put in Constitutionalists.

Constitution Party > Home

Make the Bilderberg connection already !!!!!!!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history. Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs. The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government. They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.

That just reveals the ever growing dependency of government found with each new generation over the last. They may talk about a fiscally responsible government with less taxes, until it means receiving less of what they "believe" they simply just can't do without.

If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon. Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.

The Tea Party isn't proposing programs at all. The Tea Party is proposing reforms of the system. They haven't submitted any legislation whatsoever because they are an idea, a concept, a principle, a value rather than an initiative. And they control nothing. If they did, the GOP would be far more effective than it is. We can only hope that those holding the ideas, concepts, principles, and values, will eventually be elected in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.

And because we have become a nation of sheeple, who have the lost the capability of critical thought and no longer value truth and reasoned principles, too many have become gullible idiots, uneducated and brainwashed so that they will swallow the nonsense when it is spoon fed to them and keep the totalitarians in power.

And the country is much the worse off for it.

 

[freedombecki]

You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....

It has nothing to do with being a Tea Party member or enthusiast. It has everything to do with dividing Republicans to the point that the left can push its wealth redistribution agenda, gain all seats of power, and then go for the neck of the Constitution or Chaos until an oligarchy of liberalism results. Since they've no place for conservatives, they can do what all wealth redistributors have done before them--jail vocal conservatives or create undesirable gulags to claim the assets with no resistance and become big cheeses like wealth redistributor enthusiast, Barack Obama.

[ame="http://youtu.be/z0PUUpa5X4E"]Barack Obama "I Believe in Redistribution of Wealth" Comment Loyola University 1998! - YouTube[/ame]

True, that. The democratic party can, in fact, be blamed for the republicans losing elections....!

Not all of them know what the omuerta/unionista crowd does to make that happen.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....

A scorched earth policy of reform paralyzes the economy, as we are seeing.

The Tea Party will take this country down by a thousand small cuts.

And you suckers who stand by them are going down with it. Just remember that.

Logical approach: First start with routing out waste and fraud. Then see where we stand.

Illogical approach: Shut the gov't down, commerce freezes and other countries start talking about "de-Americanizing".

Thanks Tea Party Fuckers. Tea Party dumbasses think they own the planet.

 

[kaz]

You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want? The issue is government doing it.

That all depends on whether or not the agreement was made before anything was built ... Or at least before the people in said community have already invested in property rights.
If it is retroactive on people who never agreed to your planning or rules (which is the case in many circumstances) ... Then I am with them in saying ... "Kiss my ass".

If people don't like that ... I know where you gat a lawyer that will help sue the crap out of a HOA .. Don't get me wrong ... It will put your neighbors in the hurt locker, because it will come out of their pocket.
But hey ... You can take the proceeds, along with what you make selling your house afterwards ... And build another one twice as nice further out in the country where people mind their own business.

.

The whole point of a "planned community" is that you buy in knowing the rules and who makes the rules going forward (homeowners association). Otherwise you're talking about government doing it, and that's what I said I find dubious.

 

[Contumacious]

The Tea Party will take this country down by a thousand small cuts.

Write them a letter and tell them that Taxpayers owe you a living and hellcare.

.

 

[kaz]

HUH?

We don't want to poll more that 1% if doing so requires giving up principles. That is what the Republican Part surrender caucus has been doing since 1935 , slowly adopting the democratic party's platform in order to acquire power.

.

I gave a pretty specific critique of the party, can you address where you disagree with that?

Libertarians want to be smug and superior.

I might, if you define your premises.

.

Post #360, not that one. It's on the page preceding this one, I quoted you in it, you didn't see it?

 

[kaz]

It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.

When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them. As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.

I am not at all opposed to social contract. I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.

You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want? The issue is government doing it.

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

That's ridiculous. If a community buys lands and sells it only to those who agree to the terms of purchase, that is not infringing on anyone's rights. If you don't want to agree to the terms, buy somewhere else.

That is fundamentally different than government because of consent. Government is where you vote and take away the rights of people who had no choice.

 

[kaz]

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

HUH? WTF?

If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.

You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it, then you go berserk.

.

of course they're a govt. They can only enforce their covenants by going to court and asking the govt to use it's police power to invalidate/prohibit a property use.

If I were a libertarian, which I am not, I'd be concerned that my right to contract to purchase property within the restriction, from another private citizen, would be infringed. Further, if the seller could not convey to me any property he owned freely with only natural law use impediments, there'd be a restriction on his right to property.

And WTF woudl you call me a Nazi, when you're the one suggesting property rights be limited? JFC, you people want it both ways.

Actually you are infringing on our rights because you are prohibiting us from making a freely chosen association.

1) You are talking, not listening.

2) I love the irony that now you're having government enforced lack of government where government prevents us from contracting even with our own free will. Your government is declaring all agreements void.

The issue with #2 is #1...

 

[kaz]

If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt. If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property. IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.

But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have. The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property. But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values. Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.

Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.

Most Tea Partiers are. The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced. But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.

They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.

And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything. And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.

That is all the Tea Party asks for. For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The founders were not libertarians. Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.

For example...

 

[daveman]

You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution...

Except of course for trampling states rights with federal agencies such as the DEA.

That's a-ok, right?

Oh, good grief. Go buy a dime bag already.

 

[Flopper]

Right vote out both parties and put in Constitutionalists.

Constitution Party > Home

Make the Bilderberg connection already !!!!!!!!!

Sounds like the reincarnation of the Tea Party.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have. The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property. But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values. Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.

Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.

Most Tea Partiers are. The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced. But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.

They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.

And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything. And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.

That is all the Tea Party asks for. For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.

The founders were not libertarians. Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.

Yes, the founders WERE libertarians - small 'L' - in their outlook, philosophy, and intent. They were not Libertarians - capital "L" - who would use the federal government to create their own view of utopia.

The libertarianism of the Founders is also sometimes described as 'classical liberal' as opposed to the leftist, authoritarian, statist, political class that is defined 'liberal' in modern times in America.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
"

It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Black helecopters, NWO, and the secret masters of the IRS, media, and paid message board trolls..... Object, and risk being audited, or worse, have Rachel Maddows show up at your door at midnight asking you when you stopped beating your wife. They have infiltrated the Boy Scouts, and want to destroy our traditional family values. Soon, you will be forced to hire Jesus to do your yardwark, along with his gay fellow illegal immigrant, Gonzales. When you have had enough and reach for your rifle, you will find that it has been confiscated and replaced by a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book...