Tea Party Persecution...Why?

[Contumacious]

Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day. And little that is good is likely to come from that. Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare. It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.

The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time. But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.

There is a far better choice

.

Sorry but the Libertarian Party might perhaps restore some liberties that we have lost, but it has developed its own forms of totalitarian emphasis that would take away other rights as it restored some. .

Really?

Who wold have thunketh?

What "totalitarian emphasis" are you referring too?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is a far better choice

.

.

I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.

 

[Contumacious]

There is a far better choice

.

.

I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.

No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious threat to the fascists.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a far better choice

.

Sorry but the Libertarian Party might perhaps restore some liberties that we have lost, but it has developed its own forms of totalitarian emphasis that would take away other rights as it restored some. .

Really?

Who wold have thunketh?

What "totalitarian emphasis" are you referring too?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Were you calling yourselves "Tea Partiers", or was it a Libertarian rally?

We were calling it a tax revolt. There were lots of references to the Boston Tea Party, but I can't say that anyone use the term specifically. It was definitely NOT a Libertarian rally. More populist.

 

[kaz]

There is a far better choice

.

.

I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.

No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious threat to the fascists.

.

Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.

I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight. Libertarians want to be smug and superior.

 

[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.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.

No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious threat to the fascists.

.

Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.

I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight. Libertarians want to be smug and superior.

That can be true of a number of people in all political parties however. I don't fault the Libertarians for believing they are better than the Democrats or GOP or Greens or whatever. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't be Libertarian would they?

I will give Libertarians props for having a LOT more people percentagewise within their ranks who can actually argue, debate, defend, and provide a rationale for what they promote than do the other parties. Many Republicans and most Democrats cannot do that.

But even the Libertarians have some folks with heads full of mush who just recite the talking points they are assigned and never question them.

But if the Libertarians are going to gain any traction and achieve any success in American politics, they are going to have to rethink and redefine their concept of what liberty actually is. Otherwise they will be shunned as radical fanatics that the people are not willing to take a chance on. Evenso, a lot of Tea Partiers are sympathetic with many libertarian concepts.

 

[kiwiman127]

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....

I'm pretty damn sure that a huge majority of Americans would agree with "the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government."
Where the problem for the Tea Party arises is how they deliver their message and the specific programs they want to cut or alter are programs a huge majority just happen to like.
Take Medicare for example. Paul Ryan's plan would privatize Medicare and use a voucher system based on the CPI. A person voucher would increase annually based on the CPI. The problem with that is that healthcare insurance historically has increased at a much higher rate than inflation! Between 1999 and 2009, healthcare insurance increased by 131%, inflation during that same time period increased by 28%, that's a difference of 103%! Most people who would rely on Medicare are on fixed incomes and there will be more on fixed income with future generations as they have lived with flat wages for 30 plus years (which means decreasing expendable income) and have less of a chance to build their retirement nest eggs. Plus today's Medicare negotiates with healthcare providers and so their increases in their premiums has average about two and half less than private insurance companies.
People aren't so stupid that they'd think Ryan's plan would be better. It's very easy to see that these folks would get hurt greatly and the only one's to benefit with Ryan's plan would be private insurance companies. This is simply, a transfer of wealth to the already wealthy while throwing grandma off the cliff.
The Medicare example is a perfect example of the Tea Party's train of thought. Who gets hurt are the weak and who benefits are the strong.
Thre's quite a bit of anger over Obamacare by the Tea Party and their anger is justified. Knowing that a majority of Tea Party folks aren't in the top 10%, my guess that once they fell into the Ryan plan and starting struggling with finding the funds to pay for their healthcare insurance (ala the New Medicare), they'll be just as angry or even more so than they are today with Obamacare.

 

[kaz]

I will give Libertarians props for having a LOT more people percentagewise within their ranks who can actually argue, debate, defend, and provide a rationale for what they promote than do the other parties. Many Republicans and most Democrats cannot do that.

But even the Libertarians have some folks with heads full of mush who just recite the talking points they are assigned and never question them.

But if the Libertarians are going to gain any traction and achieve any success in American politics, they are going to have to rethink and redefine their concept of what liberty actually is. Otherwise they will be shunned as radical fanatics that the people are not willing to take a chance on. Evenso, a lot of Tea Partiers are sympathetic with many libertarian concepts.

As a percent, sure, but are you referring to "Libertarians" or "libertarians." The former is a group of about 1% who are committed to the party. The latter is probably closer to 20% comprising independents, the politically homeless and many Republicans. The difference in the first two is that I think independents generally like being independent while the politically homeless do not object to party affiliation but don't connect to any of the actual parties.

The problem I have is that I think it takes a party to oppose the leftist juggernaut, but once you become a party, then you start to act like government, which is what your party is fighting. And you end up like the Libertarian party.

 

[Contumacious]

I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.

No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious threat to the fascists.

.

Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.

I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight. Libertarians want to be smug and superior.

HUH?

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

.

 

[kaz]

No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious threat to the fascists.

.

Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.

I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight. Libertarians want to be smug and superior.

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?

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.

I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight. Libertarians want to be smug and superior.

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.

.

 

[bendog]

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

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.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[manifold]

Libertarians advocate for limited government, not no government. Don't confuse them with anarchists.

And equating libertarianism with authoritarianism is even more retarded again, and not just because they're antonyms either.

Holy crap some of you folks have either had (or need) a lobotomy.

 

[manifold]

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

And they also wouldn't be libertarians. But what's in a label anyway, right.

 

[bendog]

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's like Sasha Cohen. It's just so damn fun to throw garbage at the village idiot. Mean, I grant you. But so is human nature.