What the Tea Partiers are Fighting For

[Foxfyre]

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

 

[uscitizen]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

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?

 

[rikules]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

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?

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

 

[Foxfyre]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

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?

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

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?"

 

[ihopehefails]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

To be honest, a republican party victory would mean a defeat for the tparty because the two parties are essentially the same.

 

[rdean]

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?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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.

 

[The T]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

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"

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

 

[VaYank5150]

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

So, is Napolitano now the voice and leader of the multitude of voices which make up the Tea Bagger "movement"?

 

[Jurginvoncelle]

The Tea Partiers are fighting for the Republican Party.

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?

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

You do realize the public’s patriotism, crumbling economy, lack of jobs, and elitism, was the driving force for the overthrow of the German’s standing government? This gave way for Hitler’s reign.

I have noticed the reversal of stigmatism, with TEA partiers carrying swastikas, accusing Obama's administration of totalitarianism, when the president consistently asks for bi-partisanship.

My thoughts are:
If you superimpose the faults you yourself have, upon your enemy, then at worst, your enemy defends you, or appears weak in their silence. Either way you win.

It remains proof historically, although the party didn’t last a thousand years, it did rise.
Intimidation, fear, and degradation will get you to the top, however it’s reign has limited longevity. After a while, your megalomania will cause a self induced cannibalism.

One could slanderously ask:
Already they eat their own in a search for one “pure” enough to lead?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

So, is Napolitano now the voice and leader of the multitude of voices which make up the Tea Bagger "movement"?

Napolitano was giving this kind of lecture long before the Tea Party movement got revved up, and I doubt the average Tea Partier knows who he is. But a correct perception or good idea is a correct perception or good idea no matter who thinks it up. And people can take very different paths on their way to arriving at similar conclusions.

I suspect those who think it is cute to use the perjorative term 'tea bagger' or those who continue to misrepresent how the Tea Partiers behave and what they stand for might not be able to understand that however.

 

[VaYank5150]

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

So, is Napolitano now the voice and leader of the multitude of voices which make up the Tea Bagger "movement"?

Napolitano was giving this kind of lecture long before the Tea Party movement got revved up, and I doubt the average Tea Partier knows who he is. But a correct perception or good idea is a correct perception or good idea no matter who thinks it up. And people can take very different paths on their way to arriving at similar conclusions.

I suspect those who think it is cute to use the perjorative term 'tea bagger' or those who continue to misrepresent how the Tea Partiers behave and what they stand for might not be able to understand that however.

So, if your first paragraph is true, how in the world did you come up with the thread title" What the Tea Partiers are Fighting For"?

 

[Foxfyre]

So, is Napolitano now the voice and leader of the multitude of voices which make up the Tea Bagger "movement"?

Napolitano was giving this kind of lecture long before the Tea Party movement got revved up, and I doubt the average Tea Partier knows who he is. But a correct perception or good idea is a correct perception or good idea no matter who thinks it up. And people can take very different paths on their way to arriving at similar conclusions.

I suspect those who think it is cute to use the perjorative term 'tea bagger' or those who continue to misrepresent how the Tea Partiers behave and what they stand for might not be able to understand that however.

So, if your first paragraph is true, how in the world did you come up with the thread title" What the Tea Partiers are Fighting For"?

Because the Tea Partiers are opposed to bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, more irreponsible government that tramples on the intent of the Constitution. They do it in various ways and relate it to various issues but they are essentially speaking with one voice--the same voice with which Napolitano who, so far as I know, is not a Tea Partier, speaks.

The Tea Partiers--mainstream America--wants the Federal Government to restrict itself to its Constitutionally stated responsibilities, to secure our rights, and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form the sort of society that we want. And that is what Napolitano was essentially saying.

 

[VaYank5150]

Napolitano was giving this kind of lecture long before the Tea Party movement got revved up, and I doubt the average Tea Partier knows who he is. But a correct perception or good idea is a correct perception or good idea no matter who thinks it up. And people can take very different paths on their way to arriving at similar conclusions.

I suspect those who think it is cute to use the perjorative term 'tea bagger' or those who continue to misrepresent how the Tea Partiers behave and what they stand for might not be able to understand that however.

So, if your first paragraph is true, how in the world did you come up with the thread title" What the Tea Partiers are Fighting For"?

Because the Tea Partiers are opposed to bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, more irreponsible government that tramples on the intent of the Constitution. They do it in various ways and relate it to various issues but they are essentially speaking with one voice--the same voice with which Napolitano who, so far as I know, is not a Tea Partier, speaks.

The Tea Partiers--mainstream America--wants the Federal Government to restrict itself to its Constitutionally stated responsibilities, to secure our rights, and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and form the sort of society that we want. And that is what Napolitano was essentially saying.

Really? And you surmise to speak for all of the Tea Baggers out there? How about Napolitano? That is your premise, right? So....IF the Tea Baggers for opposed to bigger, more expensive government, why were there so many protestors at Tea Bagger events saying "Hands off my MediCare"? Do you have ANY idea how much MediCare costs our too big, too expensive, too intrusive government? How about the Defense budget? Where does the Tea Bagger movement stand on that? Is the defense budget open for cuts just like any other program...like MediCare for instance?

 

[American Horse]

Really? And you surmise to speak for all of the Tea Baggers out there? How about Napolitano? That is your premise, right? So....IF the Tea Baggers for opposed to bigger, more expensive government, why were there so many protestors at Tea Bagger events saying "Hands off my MediCare"? Do you have ANY idea how much MediCare costs our too big, too expensive, too intrusive government? How about the Defense budget? Where does the Tea Bagger movement stand on that? Is the defense budget open for cuts just like any other program...like MediCare for instance?

Those Tea Party Patriots who held up signs saying "hands off my Medicare" would be the ones who have paid into it since 1967, or since, and have a contract with the government. They have prepaid those premiums without any immediate health coverage, and are now entitled to the services as agreed upon. They gave up something (money) for something (health insurance benefits). And even then, it is not free. Every beneficiary pays a monthy premium, and another premium for supplemental coverage, and another premium for drug coverage.

National defense of the country or defense of its interests is provided for in the constitution.