What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Vast LWC]

Reagan did not in fact provide a more limited government. He expanded government spending by quite a large amount.

dear, Reagan was not the government he was merely the President!!
Always try to remember that independent decide elections!!

And "Republican" does not equal "Conservative", and nether term is a synonym for "Libertarian".

all speak a lot of limited government while liberals speak of the opposite




yes it for for limits on spending, the liberals hated them

Which means it is in support of governmental control concerning morality issues,

check you facts Tea Party arose in response to BOs spending and debt

but is against government tampering in matters of business or economic growth.

Tea Party was about spending and debt

Yes, the Tea Party was originally about spending and debt, and that is something that Libertarians and Conservatives would in fact agree upon. I agree.

However, if was hijacked by the Conservatives, and the latest poll showed that a vast majority of current Tea Party members support Rick Santorum, who is quite definitely on the statist side of conservatism.

So, while there are obviously many people who make up the Tea Party, and they vary from person to person, I would say the Tea Party is now thoroughly conservative.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And, in this day and age, Libertarians and Conservatives are not the same, at all. It's the difference between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

both Republicans and both against abortion!!

You are Profiling and Generalizing.

actually both are Republicans and both are against abortion. A Republican is a libertarian who compromises to stay in office

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes and Know. I'm Tea Party, on certain issues I might find myself on any part of that chart. I can easily call myself a Conservative, a Classic Liberal, a Republican, an Environmentalist. The Tea Party might not what you all label it at all on the Left. You are Profiling on a false premise.

Certainly the Tea Party is made up of a variety of people. I was speaking in generalities, to be sure.

But it was only in response to another generality.

 

[Vast LWC]

you said OECD I said, world! Throw in and weight China Japan Korea. Average is not a brutal truth!!

Those countries are included in the OECD.

well, American kids are the dumbest in the world, the schools are liberal cess pools, have been for a long time, and the liberal devils support the status quo. Unless you think American kids are born inferior then what other explanation makes sense.

I"m really going to need some numbers to back up that assertion. I happen to think American kids are pretty damn smart, and that American schools aren't that bad.

who's talking about Canada?

Canada was included in the statistics quoted earlier.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

However, if was hijacked by the Conservatives, and the latest poll showed that a vast majority of current Tea Party members support Rick Santorum, who is quite definitely on the statist side of conservatism.



So, while there are obviously many people who make up the Tea Party, and they vary from person to person, I would say the Tea Party is now thoroughly conservative.

Jefferson, the first Republican libertarian conservative, was for very very limited government!

Democrats liberals socialist fascists communists monarchists oppose Jefferson 100% . Are you catching on now?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes and Know. I'm Tea Party, on certain issues I might find myself on any part of that chart. I can easily call myself a Conservative, a Classic Liberal, a Republican, an Environmentalist. The Tea Party might not what you all label it at all on the Left. You are Profiling on a false premise.

Certainly the Tea Party is made up of a variety of people. I was speaking in generalities, to be sure.

But it was only in response to another generality.

But here is another sticky wicket. A conservative. if he knows anything about the Tea Party, knows that yes, it is made up of many different kinds of people, but the differences among those people is not what the Tea Party movement is all about. The Tea Party movement brings together many different kinds of people who are united in a specific cause to a) to return fiscal accountability and responsibility to government; b) to shrink the size, scope, and power of the federal goernment; and c) to refocus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination and stop the steady erosion of these freedoms.

Liberals (and ignorant conservatives) try to make the Tea Party into an arm of the religious right and/or of the Republican party and/or of social conservatism. It is extremely frustrating to try to get people to focus on the principles involved and away from demonizing the group because it is seen as a threat to modern social liberalism. The truth, however, is that there are as likely as many people who are pro choice and pro life among Tea Party supporters.

The Tea Party has endorsed Mitt Romney and Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich as well as Rick Santorum, not because of any of their views on social issues, because the Tea Party is not focused on social issues, but because they have all agreed with Tea Party goals of fiscal responsiblity, smaller, more efficient, more effective, less intrusive federal government, and individual liberties.

Logical fallacy: The glasses are on the table.
The glasses are on Foxfyre.
Therefore Foxfyre is a table.

Logical fallacy: Rick Santorum is opposed to abortion.
Rick Santorum is a conservative.
Rick Santorum is endorsed by the Tea Party.
Therefore the Tea Party is conservative and opposed to abortion.

 

[Intense]

Yes and Know. I'm Tea Party, on certain issues I might find myself on any part of that chart. I can easily call myself a Conservative, a Classic Liberal, a Republican, an Environmentalist. The Tea Party might not what you all label it at all on the Left. You are Profiling on a false premise.

Certainly the Tea Party is made up of a variety of people. I was speaking in generalities, to be sure.

But it was only in response to another generality.

I hear you. When you see groups coming from all over the Country, together it is easier to see the diversity. Keep in mind this distinction though, You don't see people being censored or shut up, at the same time you stand on what you say, No One else, not unwillingly anyway. You represent yourself, not the group, outside of the platform anyway. If OWS did that, it would reduce the disconnects.

 

[Vast LWC]

Jefferson, the first Republican libertarian conservative, was for very very limited government!

Democrats liberals socialist fascists communists monarchists oppose Jefferson 100% . Are you catching on now?

Err, couple of things:

Jefferson was not a Republican. He was a Democratic-Republican.

The majority of the Democratic-Republican party actually became the Democratic Party. It was only a splinter group that formed the Whigs, and a splinter of the Whigs that formed the Lincoln-era Republican party.

And the Lincoln-Era Republican party could arguably be called the most Statist political party in American history, with the possible exception of FDR.


Be that as it may, it still doesn't link conservatism to liberalism any more than any other argument made so far.

 

[Vast LWC]

I hear you. When you see groups coming from all over the Country, together it is easier to see the diversity. Keep in mind this distinction though, You don't see people being censored or shut up, at the same time you stand on what you say, No One else, not unwillingly anyway. You represent yourself, not the group, outside of the platform anyway. If OWS did that, it would reduce the disconnects.

Truth.

 

[The T]

Reagan did not in fact provide a more limited government. He expanded government spending by quite a large amount.

dear, Reagan was not the government he was merely the President!!
Always try to remember that independent decide elections!!





all speak a lot of limited government while liberals speak of the opposite




yes it for for limits on spending, the liberals hated them



check you facts Tea Party arose in response to BOs spending and debt

but is against government tampering in matters of business or economic growth.

Tea Party was about spending and debt

Yes, the Tea Party was originally about spending and debt, and that is something that Libertarians and Conservatives would in fact agree upon. I agree.

However, if was hijacked by the Conservatives, and the latest poll showed that a vast majority of current Tea Party members support Rick Santorum, who is quite definitely on the statist side of conservatism.

So, while there are obviously many people who make up the Tea Party, and they vary from person to person, I would say the Tea Party is now thoroughly conservative.

"If hijacked by Conservatives..." ?

Really Gracie?

YOU have no clue, do you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberals (and ignorant conservatives) try to make the Tea Party into an arm of the religious right and/or of the Republican party and/or of social conservatism.

why not since those intelligent enough to be Republican fiscal conservatives are usually the ones intelligent enough to be Republican social conservatives

 

[Intense]

Yes and Know. I'm Tea Party, on certain issues I might find myself on any part of that chart. I can easily call myself a Conservative, a Classic Liberal, a Republican, an Environmentalist. The Tea Party might not what you all label it at all on the Left. You are Profiling on a false premise.

Certainly the Tea Party is made up of a variety of people. I was speaking in generalities, to be sure.

But it was only in response to another generality.

But here is another sticky wicket. A conservative. if he knows anything about the Tea Party, knows that yes, it is made up of many different kinds of people, but the differences among those people is not what the Tea Party movement is all about. The Tea Party movement brings together many different kinds of people who are united in a specific cause to a) to return fiscal accountability and responsibility to government; b) to shrink the size, scope, and power of the federal goernment; and c) to refocus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination and stop the steady erosion of these freedoms.

Liberals (and ignorant conservatives) try to make the Tea Party into an arm of the religious right and/or of the Republican party and/or of social conservatism. It is extremely frustrating to try to get people to focus on the principles involved and away from demonizing the group because it is seen as a threat to modern social liberalism.

Agreed, though those attributes are there in Individuals, not as a part of the Platform.

One great thing about the concept of Enumerated Powers, it is limits the effects of possible Tyranny by limiting power, allowing us to act freely in ways that maybe should not be the Governments concern. It's okay for us to disagree and have different Lawful interests. Liberty is not about Each of us carbon copies of ourselves or anyone else. It's more about developing and learning from each other each, at our own pace, on our own terms and acceptance, given Cause and Effect.

 

[The T]

Certainly the Tea Party is made up of a variety of people. I was speaking in generalities, to be sure.

But it was only in response to another generality.

But here is another sticky wicket. A conservative. if he knows anything about the Tea Party, knows that yes, it is made up of many different kinds of people, but the differences among those people is not what the Tea Party movement is all about. The Tea Party movement brings together many different kinds of people who are united in a specific cause to a) to return fiscal accountability and responsibility to government; b) to shrink the size, scope, and power of the federal goernment; and c) to refocus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination and stop the steady erosion of these freedoms.

Liberals (and ignorant conservatives) try to make the Tea Party into an arm of the religious right and/or of the Republican party and/or of social conservatism. It is extremely frustrating to try to get people to focus on the principles involved and away from demonizing the group because it is seen as a threat to modern social liberalism.

Agreed, though those attributes are there in Individuals, not as a part of the Platform.

One great thing about the concept of Enumerated Powers, it is limits the effects of possible Tyranny by limiting power, allowing us to act freely in ways that maybe should not be the Governments concern. It's okay for us to disagree and have different Lawful interests. Liberty is not about Each of us carbon copies of ourselves or anyone else. It's more about developing and learning from each other each, at our own pace, on our own terms and acceptance, given Cause and Effect.

And exercising it on our own behalf while NOT forcing it upon others.

THAT is Liberty.

 

[Vast LWC]

"If hijacked by Conservatives..." ?

Really Gracie?

YOU have no clue, do you?

It is my understanding that the original Tea Party message was, as Foxfyre pointed out, a libertarian message of limited government fiscally as well as socially.

Am I mistaken in that?


Fox News is made up of Conservatives. They are the ones that "hijacked" the Tea Party movement by sponsoring their events as their own.

Thus were they able to put their own Conservative spin on the Tea Party's message.

And now, the Tea Party overwhelmingly supports Rick Santorum, who, while a fiscal libertarian, is a social Statist.

Which, if you look at the chart, is the definition of a Conservative.

So, please point out where I am lacking said clue...

 

[Vast LWC]

But here is another sticky wicket. A conservative. if he knows anything about the Tea Party, knows that yes, it is made up of many different kinds of people, but the differences among those people is not what the Tea Party movement is all about. The Tea Party movement brings together many different kinds of people who are united in a specific cause to a) to return fiscal accountability and responsibility to government; b) to shrink the size, scope, and power of the federal goernment; and c) to refocus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination and stop the steady erosion of these freedoms.

Which is a Libertarian message. A message that I believe was the original intent of the Tea Party, but is not longer the case.

Liberals (and ignorant conservatives) try to make the Tea Party into an arm of the religious right and/or of the Republican party and/or of social conservatism. It is extremely frustrating to try to get people to focus on the principles involved and away from demonizing the group because it is seen as a threat to modern social liberalism. The truth, however, is that there are as likely as many people who are pro choice and pro life among Tea Party supporters.

The Tea Party has endorsed Mitt Romney and Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich as well as Rick Santorum, not because of any of their views on social issues, because the Tea Party is not focused on social issues, but because they have all agreed with Tea Party goals of fiscal responsiblity, smaller, more efficient, more effective, less intrusive federal government, and individual liberties.

Logical fallacy: The glasses are on the table.
The glasses are on Foxfyre.
Therefore Foxfyre is a table.

Logical fallacy: Rick Santorum is opposed to abortion.
Rick Santorum is a conservative.
Rick Santorum is endorsed by the Tea Party.
Therefore the Tea Party is conservative and opposed to abortion.

While those are in fact logical fallacies, and I see your point, here is mine:

Why would the Tea Party not support Ron Paul over Rick Santorum if they did in fact adhere to the Libertarian principles you stated are their goals?

Why would they ever have supported Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, both centrist-leaning statist-conservative at all? Much less over Ron Paul?

 

[Intense]

"If hijacked by Conservatives..." ?

Really Gracie?

YOU have no clue, do you?

It is my understanding that the original Tea Party message was, as Foxfyre pointed out, a libertarian message of limited government fiscally as well as socially.

Am I mistaken in that?


Fox News is made up of Conservatives. They are the ones that "hijacked" the Tea Party movement by sponsoring their events as their own.

Thus were they able to put their own Conservative spin on the Tea Party's message.

And now, the Tea Party overwhelmingly supports Rick Santorum, who, while a fiscal libertarian, is a social Statist.

Which, if you look at the chart, is the definition of a Conservative.

So, please point out where I am lacking said clue...

That may be the impression, but that may not be the case. I'm Tea Party, I support Romney. I appreciate the process, and to a point, many of the issues that are being both discussed and refined, because of the input.

 

[The T]

"If hijacked by Conservatives..." ?

Really Gracie?

YOU have no clue, do you?

It is my understanding that the original Tea Party message was, as Foxfyre pointed out, a libertarian message of limited government fiscally as well as socially.

Am I mistaken in that?


Fox News is made up of Conservatives. They are the ones that "hijacked" the Tea Party movement by sponsoring their events as their own.

Thus were they able to put their own Conservative spin on the Tea Party's message.

And now, the Tea Party overwhelmingly supports Rick Santorum, who, while a fiscal libertarian, is a social Statist.

Which, if you look at the chart, is the definition of a Conservative.

So, please point out where I am lacking said clue...

I bolded ONE of your misconceptions and a distraction YOU impose into the fray...

The TEA Party is made of of Conservatives of many stripes/beliefs...but Conservatives none the less...

Oh? And Screw your chart. Unreliable at best.

 

[bayoubridge]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

>>>
God, that's just republican nonsense. Your leaders want a smaller Gov. because they want to get rid of regulations, medicare, medicaid and social security. republicans work for insurance co and oil companies and don't give a damn about you. During the bush years, they took just about all they could from the middle class. Now that there is nothing left to take, it's time to find other ways to move cash up to the 1%. Is reality just something you want nothing to do with?

 

[Intense]

But here is another sticky wicket. A conservative. if he knows anything about the Tea Party, knows that yes, it is made up of many different kinds of people, but the differences among those people is not what the Tea Party movement is all about. The Tea Party movement brings together many different kinds of people who are united in a specific cause to a) to return fiscal accountability and responsibility to government; b) to shrink the size, scope, and power of the federal goernment; and c) to refocus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination and stop the steady erosion of these freedoms.

Which is a Libertarian message. A message that I believe was the original intent of the Tea Party, but is not longer the case.

Liberals (and ignorant conservatives) try to make the Tea Party into an arm of the religious right and/or of the Republican party and/or of social conservatism. It is extremely frustrating to try to get people to focus on the principles involved and away from demonizing the group because it is seen as a threat to modern social liberalism. The truth, however, is that there are as likely as many people who are pro choice and pro life among Tea Party supporters.

The Tea Party has endorsed Mitt Romney and Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich as well as Rick Santorum, not because of any of their views on social issues, because the Tea Party is not focused on social issues, but because they have all agreed with Tea Party goals of fiscal responsiblity, smaller, more efficient, more effective, less intrusive federal government, and individual liberties.

Logical fallacy: The glasses are on the table.
The glasses are on Foxfyre.
Therefore Foxfyre is a table.

Logical fallacy: Rick Santorum is opposed to abortion.
Rick Santorum is a conservative.
Rick Santorum is endorsed by the Tea Party.
Therefore the Tea Party is conservative and opposed to abortion.

While those are in fact logical fallacies, and I see your point, here is mine:

Why would the Tea Party not support Ron Paul over Rick Santorum if they did in fact adhere to the Libertarian principles you stated are their goals?

Why would they ever have supported Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, both centrist-leaning statist-conservative at all? Much less over Ron Paul?

Why would the Tea Party not support Ron Paul over Rick Santorum if they did in fact adhere to the Libertarian principles you stated are their goals?

Like it or not, Romney has the Business sense and experience, he also does have experience working with both sides to accomplish reasonable goals. I'd prefer baby steps over gridlock, with the situation worsening, not being able to move in any direction at all.

Why would they ever have supported Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, both centrist-leaning statist-conservative at all? Much less over Ron Paul?

I would need to see Perry do more effectively, before I feel comfortable with him.

Paul, is a big fail on "Speak softly and carry a big stick". They all have good ideas. The thing is, who is the best administrator, and who is most likely to trip up, right out of the gate?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your leaders want a smaller Gov. because they want

Freedom from liberal government just as our Founders did. Are you anti-American?

Our Founders knew government was evil; that is why they gave us freedom from government.

Are you enjoying the current government caused Great Recession or something? Did you notice how China ended centuries a en masse liberal starvation when they deregulated????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?