Who Would Have Thought, Tea Party Folks Don't Back Republicans

[Midnight Marauder]

Again, will you people stop calling him a Liberal. I should seriously get a giant poster and stick it to the wall of every thread so that ignorant lie will end.

He's definitely not a classical liberal. He's a progressive. There's a huge difference but the "progressive" term isn't well understood, so most folks stick with "liberal."

Liberal or progressive, he was the most left Senator when he was there. which wasn't much. In IL his most significant votes were on abortion while alive.

Yes I'm keeping the old definition of "classical liberal" -- which, there's nothing wrong with those folks or their philosophy -- as far away from Obama as possible. That might be dogbert's gripe as well, not sure though.

Today, "Liberal" too often is used when people actually mean "far-left wacko."

 

[Modbert]

Define liberal, nitwit.

The people with common sense on this board even know Obama is not a Liberal. Please get some.

A lot of Obama's policies thus fare are anything but Liberal. Plus, he has many views conflicting with Liberal ideology.

Adlai Stevenson was a Liberal. JFK was a Liberal. Barack Obama is not a Liberal.

Edit: If you like, I'll define what I think a Liberal is when it comes to positions.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

There were even registered Democrats in those rallies as well. I think the majority of Americans were upset at Bush's fiscal policies and this in turn caused the swing voters to turn to the only other option. Now that they see that Obama is, in fact, a tax and spend liberal on anabolic steroids they will make their voices heard in 2010.

Again, will you people stop calling him a Liberal. I should seriously get a giant poster and stick it to the wall of every thread so that ignorant lie will end.

Please...answer the question posed to you on the previous page.

Please tell us what your definition of a liberal is so we don't offend your keen intellectual perception anymore.

 

[Si modo]

He's definitely not a classical liberal. He's a progressive. There's a huge difference but the "progressive" term isn't well understood, so most folks stick with "liberal."

Liberal or progressive, he was the most left Senator when he was there. which wasn't much. In IL his most significant votes were on abortion while alive.

Yes I'm keeping the old definition of "classical liberal" -- which, there's nothing wrong with those folks or their philosophy -- as far away from Obama as possible. That might be dogbert's gripe as well, not sure though.

Today, "Liberal" too often is used when people actually mean "far-left wacko."

Right. He is not in the least classically liberal.

Of course, the two terms liberal and conservative have become so subjective in the USA that they are virtually without any meaning without clarification.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Liberal or progressive, he was the most left Senator when he was there. which wasn't much. In IL his most significant votes were on abortion while alive.

Yes I'm keeping the old definition of "classical liberal" -- which, there's nothing wrong with those folks or their philosophy -- as far away from Obama as possible. That might be dogbert's gripe as well, not sure though.

Today, "Liberal" too often is used when people actually mean "far-left wacko."

Right. He is not in the least classically liberal.

Of course, the two terms liberal and conservative have become so subjective in the USA that they are virtually without any meaning without clarification.

Yup. They have very little if any of their original meaning left.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There were even registered Democrats in those rallies as well. I think the majority of Americans were upset at Bush's fiscal policies and this in turn caused the swing voters to turn to the only other option. Now that they see that Obama is, in fact, a tax and spend liberal on anabolic steroids they will make their voices heard in 2010.

Again, will you people stop calling him a Liberal. I should seriously get a giant poster and stick it to the wall of every thread so that ignorant lie will end.

It is not a lie. He espouses liberalism. It may not be your type of liberalism, but it is progressive liberalism just the same.

 

[Modbert]

Please...answer the question posed to you on the previous page.

Please tell us what your definition of a liberal is so we don't offend your keen intellectual perception anymore.

See the last post but I'll define how I look at it:

Energy Policy: Look away from drilling in Alaska and Ethanol since both are more destructive than help. Look more towards clean coal, nuclear energy, wind power, and other clean alternatives. Not so this can save us more money in the long run but keep the air cleaner. Whether you agree or disagree with global warming, the fact the air can be affected by this stuff is fact.

Health Care: What this country needs is something along the lines of what Teddy Roosevelt did while in office and what JFK somewhat did. Trust busting. Allow statewide competition for Health Care. Allow a non-profit Government Health Care OPTION. Do not make Health Care a requirement for everyone under the duress of penalty. These things need to be done otherwise the costs of Health Care will eventually be one of the driving reasons this country falls into a 3rd world shithole.

Network neutrality: I am all for no censorship. Censorship in all forms is wrong. This goes along with freedom of speech and pornography as well. The only things I would keep illegal are what in the Constitution now and other laws like not yelling fire in a movie theater.

War on Drugs: End it, end it now, not tomorrow. $40 billion+ a year spent between the federal government and state government for what? Higher drug rates? The obvious solution would be to decriminalize it for possession, make it legal, and tax it. Tax revenues would be over $100 billion a year. Plus, this would open the door to rehabilitation programs instead of prisons being the solution for junkies. Remember, a junkie isn't just someone who does heroin. It's someone who does too much of anything. May it be alcohol, fatty food, etc. However, one can not force people to get help.

Hate Crimes: Get rid of them. Government should not be getting into thought crimes. This slippery slope will lead us nowhere good.

Gun Control: No one should be against the ownership of Guns in general. Banning guns in certain areas will not make things better, they will only put the guns in the hands of criminals only. However, I am for common sense gun control. Waiting periods, background checks, and no guns for certain people (violent convicts,etc).

Bailouts: Make the Banks pay every red cent they got bailed out for and then say never again. The automobile loan "bailout" was a good idea since it not only has worked in the past but it keeps American jobs afloat.

Foreign Policy: Leave Iraq, Leave Afghanistan, go down the line and get rid of waste in the Military. I am all for giving our troops the necessary equipment needed to get any job done. However, as the Afghanistan and Iraq war showed, they don't always do. In fact, they don't always even have the necessary body armor. $518 billion a year and we can't even afford body armor? Something is wrong with this picture and it smells like the Military Industrial Complex to me.

Federal Reserve: Simply get rid of it. Why in the hell do we have a private company in charge of our money? So they can charge us $100 for a $100 note when we can make it for $4? What's the sense in that? Our debt will not be helped by such matters. Plus, the fact that our value of the dollar has gone down 90% since 1913 and the Federal Reserve being created in 1913 is no surprise.

Gay Marriage: Get the Government out of Gay Marriage. Give everyone equal legal rights under Civil Unions. If couples want to be "married", they can do so in the church. However, legally, they will all be civil unions.

Any other positions you want to know about, ask me.

I think I would be someone you and others could vote for.

 

[Modbert]

It is not a lie. He espouses liberalism. It may not be your type of liberalism, but it is progressive liberalism just the same.

You're just wanting to connect Liberalism with him. He may be a progressive as you call it but it's not Liberalism in any sense of the word.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This best fits my perception of liberalism as quoted from wiki....and as taught to me by my parents, grand parents etc.
The ideas of individual liberty, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, "enlightened" and "rational" policy, the rule of law, respect for science, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade

Now...where did the Democratic Party go wrong? Nearly every single one of these tenets has been kicked to the curb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the Teabaggers are going to go 3rd party and split the GOP?

Halleluyah!!!

 

[Modbert]

This best fits my perception of liberalism as quoted from wiki....and as taught to me by my parents, grand parents etc.
The ideas of individual liberty, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, "enlightened" and "rational" policy, the rule of law, respect for science, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade

Now...where did the Democratic Party go wrong? Nearly every single one of these tenets has been kicked to the curb.

That about sums up how I feel about things. Plus, one has to remember, Democrats are not necessary Liberals and Liberals are not necessary Democrats.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Please...answer the question posed to you on the previous page.

Please tell us what your definition of a liberal is so we don't offend your keen intellectual perception anymore.

See the last post but I'll define how I look at it:

Energy Policy: Look away from drilling in Alaska and Ethanol since both are more destructive than help. Look more towards clean coal, nuclear energy, wind power, and other clean alternatives. Not so this can save us more money in the long run but keep the air cleaner. Whether you agree or disagree with global warming, the fact the air can be affected by this stuff is fact.

Health Care: What this country needs is something along the lines of what Teddy Roosevelt did while in office and what JFK somewhat did. Trust busting. Allow statewide competition for Health Care. Allow a non-profit Government Health Care OPTION. Do not make Health Care a requirement for everyone under the duress of penalty. These things need to be done otherwise the costs of Health Care will eventually be one of the driving reasons this country falls into a 3rd world shithole.

Network neutrality: I am all for no censorship. Censorship in all forms is wrong. This goes along with freedom of speech and pornography as well. The only things I would keep illegal are what in the Constitution now and other laws like not yelling fire in a movie theater.

War on Drugs: End it, end it now, not tomorrow. $40 billion+ a year spent between the federal government and state government for what? Higher drug rates? The obvious solution would be to decriminalize it for possession, make it legal, and tax it. Tax revenues would be over $100 billion a year. Plus, this would open the door to rehabilitation programs instead of prisons being the solution for junkies. Remember, a junkie isn't just someone who does heroin. It's someone who does too much of anything. May it be alcohol, fatty food, etc. However, one can not force people to get help.

Hate Crimes: Get rid of them. Government should not be getting into thought crimes. This slippery slope will lead us nowhere good.

Gun Control: No one should be against the ownership of Guns in general. Banning guns in certain areas will not make things better, they will only put the guns in the hands of criminals only. However, I am for common sense gun control. Waiting periods, background checks, and no guns for certain people (violent convicts,etc).

Bailouts: Make the Banks pay every red cent they got bailed out for and then say never again. The automobile loan "bailout" was a good idea since it not only has worked in the past but it keeps American jobs afloat.

Foreign Policy: Leave Iraq, Leave Afghanistan, go down the line and get rid of waste in the Military. I am all for giving our troops the necessary equipment needed to get any job done. However, as the Afghanistan and Iraq war showed, they don't always do. In fact, they don't always even have the necessary body armor. $518 billion a year and we can't even afford body armor? Something is wrong with this picture and it smells like the Military Industrial Complex to me.

Federal Reserve: Simply get rid of it. Why in the hell do we have a private company in charge of our money? So they can charge us $100 for a $100 note when we can make it for $4? What's the sense in that? Our debt will not be helped by such matters. Plus, the fact that our value of the dollar has gone down 90% since 1913 and the Federal Reserve being created in 1913 is no surprise.

Gay Marriage: Get the Government out of Gay Marriage. Give everyone equal legal rights under Civil Unions. If couples want to be "married", they can do so in the church. However, legally, they will all be civil unions.

Any other positions you want to know about, ask me.

I think I would be someone you and others could vote for.

We have simular views on some things here. This is what our politicians have forgotten to do. Look at what the opposition have to offer, find common ground and then COMPROMISE!

 

[Modbert]

We have simular views on some things here. This is what our politicians have forgotten to do. Look at what the opposition have to offer, find common ground and then COMPROMISE!

Compromising means less bloodshed though.

Seriously though, I find my views are more aligned with the Libertarian party of today rather than the Democratic Party. However, the Libertarian Party I also think has it's faults.

I've always had the fun idea of making my own political party and at least making a difference in my own state.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It is not a lie. He espouses liberalism. It may not be your type of liberalism, but it is progressive liberalism just the same.

You're just wanting to connect Liberalism with him. He may be a progressive as you call it but it's not Liberalism in any sense of the word.

It is my understanding, that the teabag protests have been ones were all were welcome, regardless of party affiliation. Whether people have the resolve to make the sacrifices needed to get this Republic back on a solid constitutional footing remains to be seen. Some Americans believe President Obama is the answer to the woes of the Republic. He isn't the answer. He is part of the problem, as are many of the employers.

One of the reasons he is a problem to this Republic, is that he believes (like Hamilton did) the federal government is and has the duty to be the most power entity over a persons life. He interprets Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution in a very broad sense as Hamilton did. Control of the banking institutions is another area of commonality.

In my opinion, President Obama is to the left of Hamilton. I am no real fan of Hamilton and no fan at all of President Obama.

You can continue to declare that the President does proffer liberalism all you want. The facts aren't agreeing with you. Statism is a form of liberalism albeit it is more too the left than Classical Liberalism, or other factions of liberalism.

 

[Oddball]

Define liberal, nitwit.

The people with common sense on this board even know Obama is not a Liberal. Please get some.

A lot of Obama's policies thus fare are anything but Liberal. Plus, he has many views conflicting with Liberal ideology.

Adlai Stevenson was a Liberal. JFK was a Liberal. Barack Obama is not a Liberal.

Edit: If you like, I'll define what I think a Liberal is when it comes to positions.

None of them were classical liberals, properly defined....All were and are differing degrees of Fabian socialists.

 

[Fatality]

How many ways can one say, 'told you so?'

Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership - Yahoo! News

Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership

Alex Isenstadt
Sun Oct 11, 8:00 am ET

While the energy of the anti-tax and anti-Big Government tea party movement may yet haunt Democrats in 2010, the first order of business appears to be remaking the Republican Party.

Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents.

“We will be a headache for anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States … isn’t to be protected,” said Dick Armey, chairman of the anti-tax and limited government advocacy group FreedomWorks, which helped plan and promote the tea parties, town hall protests and the September ‘Taxpayer March’ in Washington. “If you can’t take it seriously, we will look for places of other employment for you.”

“We’re not a partisan organization, and I think many Republicans are disappointed we are not,” added Armey, a former GOP congressman...

thats a good thing, i have already taken a position in my district as well.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Define liberal, nitwit.

The people with common sense on this board even know Obama is not a Liberal. Please get some.

A lot of Obama's policies thus fare are anything but Liberal. Plus, he has many views conflicting with Liberal ideology.

Adlai Stevenson was a Liberal. JFK was a Liberal. Barack Obama is not a Liberal.

Edit: If you like, I'll define what I think a Liberal is when it comes to positions.

None of them were classical liberals, properly defined....All were and are differing degrees of Fabian socialists.

Perhaps this is why Europe embraces these leaders.

 

[VaYank5150]

So the Teabaggers are going to go 3rd party and split the GOP?

Halleluyah!!!

The GOP is already split and has been for a few years. How many splinters exist, and to which groups they belong are the real questions that needs to be answered before a 3rd Party nominee can be taken seriously, IMHO.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It think it is good news, very good news. The Tea Party crowd are extremely upset at the fiscally reckless policies that continue with Obama. GWB was a Republican, yet he spent like a liberal and grew government at a phenomenal rate! Conservatives won't get fooled again. Of course, Obama is making Bush look like a tightwad with his trillions in reckless spending!

Bottom line: Republican candidates need to have "CONSERVATIVE" fiscal values if they want to be elected. That is good news, good news indeed!

No kiddin'... we are flat fed up with faux-republicans... Word to moderates: GET OUT!

 

[Modbert]

No kiddin'... we are flat fed up with faux-republicans... Word to moderates: GET OUT!

Yes! Throw all the moderates out of the GOP! I support you in your crusade.