What the Tea Partiers are Fighting For

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Foxfyre, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,692
    Thanks Received:
    10,806
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,407
    Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court Judge in the history of New Jersey and is an often invited guest on cable and network programs. He has long questioned and objected to some provisions of the Patriot Act and is an outspoken critic of a government that oversteps its authority in other ways as well. This recent address at a Campaign for Liberty meeting beautifully illustrates much of the message that the Tea Partiers and Tax Protest groups have been emphazing all over the country.

    It only takes a few minutes to watch his presentation:

    YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3 of 3
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2010
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,692
    Thanks Received:
    10,806
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,407
    Some are hoping to reform the GOP, that is true. Fighting to preserve the GOP the way it has been for the last several years. No way.

    Did you listen to Judge Napolitano's presentation? What problem, if any, do you have with it?
     
  4. rikules
    Offline

    rikules fighting thugs and cons

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +305

    well

    he mentioned health care (and how much real Americans oppose it)
    and he managed to not give any alternatives...

    just..."government...health care...democrats...bad"

    and he mentioned the patriot act
    which these same people SUPPORTED whole heartedly when CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS (bush) created it

    and declared anyone who opposed it to be "America hating liberals"

    but now that a democrat is president these same people are blaming the patriot act on "liberal democrats" and opposing it just as whole heartedly as they supported it when bush was president.


    he touched on
    history of government badly mis-managing

    which I agree with
    but he, once again, failed to mention any alternatives...

    personally, until a better solution is offered up, i'll trust a democrat/republican government over any unethical business or religious organization


    he repeated the sentiment;
    "the constitution does NOT say....."
    a few times.

    and he's right....the constitution does NOT say what he said it doesn't say...

    the thing is....the constitution does not say much of anything when it comes to rights and freedoms and priviledges.


    the actual constitution is really more of a roberts rules of order for governmment.

    (discounting the amendments to the constitution that were written a few years AFTER the actual constitution was written)

    mostly the constitution just describes our government, its' responsibilities and duties, and lists the rules for running for and holding public office

    so when he says that the constitution does not give you the right to free health care he might
    just as easily say "the constitution does NOT give you the right to (work, marry, read, smoke tobacco, eat ice cream.....)"

    of course
    he then reverses himself

    and starts talking about vague "freedoms" (which are NOT in the constitution) that are in danger of being "taken away" (liberals, socialists/communists, democrats, of course)

    once again, he gives no examples.


    he then steps up the rhetoric and hyperbole
    with passionate appeals to illogical and irrational fears;

    "defending FREEDOM in mAXIMUM hour of DANGER!"

    YOU are that generation
    NOW is that time

    freedom must be defended
    from EVERY ASSAILENT
    (liberals...democrats)

    and especially from that LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC government that wants to take it away from us"

    finishing, of course, with the obligatory christian religious reference;

    "god bless you"

    so
    to answer your question
    "Did you listen to Judge Napolitano's presentation? What problem, if any, do you have with it? "

    he touched upon 2 issues very lightly, giving no alternatives

    he used vague, unspecified fears to bond his listeners in their hatred of libs and dems (the one TRUE issue...they don't really care about health care or the patriot act...they HATE LIBERALS! it's their common attribute)

    and he told them that it was UP TO THEM to "solve the liberal problem"

    and that it was THEIR TIME to START "solving the liberal problem"

    sounds exactly like what conservative republicans and conservative hate talk show hosts have been saying for the past 20 years

    or what national socialists were saying about non-aryans in germany during the 1930's
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,692
    Thanks Received:
    10,806
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,407
    Wow. Some summary but thanks for the effort even if you were unable to resist evoking Godwin's Law.

    As for vague fears, what do you consider 'vague'? I thought he was pretty darn specific.

    And as for alternatives, is the lack of an alternative a good reason to do something really bad or stupid? If you decide not to jump off a cliff, what is your alternate plan? If you decide not to smash your thumb with a hammer, what do you do instead? To quote Thomas Sowell: "If you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"
     
  6. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    To be honest, a republican party victory would mean a defeat for the tparty because the two parties are essentially the same.
     
  7. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,148
    Thanks Received:
    6,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,995
    He's against "ANY" regulation?

    Does that include mercury in our drinking what? Pesticides in our wheat and corn? Aren't regulations what keeps China from poisoning our babies?

    Health care companies made 12 billion last year. Most of that by dropping 2.7 million people who might get sick. So the answer is to deregulate them further? So they can make 20 billion? 30 billion?

    This is the Republican answer? This is how they will "fix" the mess they created?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,692
    Thanks Received:
    10,806
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,407
    I didn't go back to re-listen to the presentation, but I doubt he said he was against ANY regulation. I have heard Judge Napolitano speak on various subjects and I don't believe he said that. He was specific that yes the U.S. Government should regulate interstate trade to ensure that New Mexico did not favor say Texas over Arizona in what could be sold or bought here. A free market is the Federal government's business.

    But it is not the prerogative of the Federal Government to regulate WHAT can be sold among the states or how they go about doing it or how they structure their work force or what they pay people to make, package, advertise, market, and ship the products.

    And it is the state's prerogative, not the Federal government to regulate whatever is regulated in the health industry within the state.

    I am maybe less of a pure libertarian than Napolitano is, but I do understand what he is saying. The more the Federal government assumes power, the less the state is able to do so. And eventually the real losers are the people when they wake up one morning and find that their personal liberties, property, choices, options, opportunities, hopes, and dreams have become the property of the Federal government to dictate as it chooses.
     
  9. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Or so Nancy "S-T-R-E-T-C-H" Pelosi would have you belive...



    Pelosi Says She Shares Values With Tea Party <LINK


    Wait a minute here? *I* Thought this past summer they were "AstroTurf" and " Nazi's "? Political posturing? *YOU* Be the Judge.

    One has to wonder if she gave birth to Linda Blair that did so much spinning in the "Exorcist" :eusa_whistle:

    Give it up Nancy. It's too late. You have as much in common with Tea Partiers, as monkeys do with purchases of modern appliances. It just isn't happening.

    ~T
     
  10. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    So, is Napolitano now the voice and leader of the multitude of voices which make up the Tea Bagger "movement"?
     

Share This Page