The term Tea Party

[georg jetson]

I don't know about you guys but I'm still Teed off that my once beloved Tea Party was co-opted and taken over by establishment blank-hats. :uhoh: Wait, am I the only one? :uhoh:

In all seriousness, there are still those that are members of the Tea Party that fall more into the independant and libertarian mindset; even some liberals, but they are getting fewer and fewer. I may have to even change my avatar to the Free State flag with the porcupine just to differentiate myself. On second thought; I'm taking it back. I had it first!

In any case, there were times when big government and taxes have been derided by both parties. The independant and libertarian wings of the Tea Party stand for that but now the establishment on both sides of the left-right paradigm want big government spending for their favorite issues but not the other sides issues and have drowned out the others who aknowledge that you cant have your cake and eat it too. The media hasn't helped things either. So what is a poor minarchist libertarian like myself to do? I kind of feel like I got kicked out of my own house.

How do you think Ron Paul feels??

 

[Brass Magnet]

Brass, I may be missing the jist of what you are stating, but: Republicans (Conservatives), Democrats (Liberals), different sides of the same coin. What we need is a viable Third Party.

A viable Third Party will only be viable if the masses are Informed, not 'informed'. That's assuming the masses have sufficient knowledge, the capacity to reason, and a thorough understanding of where we are, where we were, and where we should be going. Good luck!

+1 on a viable third party.

Unfortunately, seemingly the only way to get this done without properly informed masses is to sneak a third party candidate into an establisment party or slowly turn an establishment party into a third party. These approaches require that the candidate or the newly co-opted party honestly reform the system once they get in power so that a third party can have a chance. That's a pretty tall order. With a single candidate, it's easier to trust that he/she will do what he/she said they would do but the reforms are hard to pass because of theof the establishment. The second approach garauntees they'll have the power to reform but it's pretty hard to trust them to do it. A mix of the two approaches; which I'd argue is happening now, at least shifts the debate but will be very slow. There's a final option but as I said in another thread sometimes you trade in your old shackles in for shiny new ones.

Something about exchanging a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage and Pink Floyd comes to mind.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

+1 on a viable third party.

Unfortunately, seemingly the only way to get this done without properly informed masses is to sneak a third party candidate into an establisment party or slowly turn an establishment party into a third party. These approaches require that the candidate or the newly co-opted party honestly reform the system once they get in power so that a third party can have a chance. That's a pretty tall order. With a single candidate, it's easier to trust that he/she will do what he/she said they would do but the reforms are hard to pass because of theof the establishment. The second approach garauntees they'll have the power to reform but it's pretty hard to trust them to do it. A mix of the two approaches; which I'd argue is happening now, at least shifts the debate but will be very slow. There's a final option but as I said in another thread sometimes you trade in your old shackles in for shiny new ones.

Something about exchanging a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage and Pink Floyd comes to mind.

It has been apparent for some time that we are in a serious pickle here. At this point I force myself to attribute faith in things working out, not that I actually believe that they will. ~Sara Mae (the eternal pessimist)

 

[Daylen]

Well then, this is irrelevant. This would be like comparing oil consumption today to oil consumption prior to it being utilized as a form of energy.



Seriously, read your freaking links. You are joking, right? I hope every person reads through your link, so they can see that in this case, what you are asserting is complete BS. I really hope that you are merely being sarcastic.

I genuinely do not mean to come off as harsh.

Really, we have had a number of exchanges, and you should know that I am capable of not only writing, but reading. Please, save these false assertions for the masses that tend to occupy this page, and left-wing pages.

Don't mean to be harsh? I guess lying is all you intend.
All they will find is:

Obama's rate: 35%
Bush 1: 28%
Reagan: 28% (not for entire time, but it takes time to get tax rates changed by congress especially when much of the time it was a democrat majority)
Calvin Coolidge: 25% (the interesting thing about this one is after adjustment for inflation people making 100k paid only 5% and him and congress somehow worked to get the tax changes made early)

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Don't mean to be harsh? I guess lying is all you intend.
All they will find is:

Obama's rate: 35%
Bush 1: 28%
Reagan: 28% (not for entire time, but it takes time to get tax rates changed by congress especially when much of the time it was a democrat majority)
Calvin Coolidge: 25% (the interesting thing about this one is after adjustment for inflation people making 100k paid only 5% and him and congress somehow worked to get the tax changes made early)

You are throwing out a code that is difficult for individuals to understand. Please, feel free to give us a thorough explanation of where those percentages are derived, how they are come to.

 

[Verd]

You are throwing out a code that is difficult for individuals to understand. Please, feel free to give us a thorough explanation of where those percentages are derived, how they are come to.

No its not. I am an "individual" and it is pretty clear to me.

On the left of each column it lists the "Marginal Tax Rate". For example, in 1991, the list for the "Marginal Tax Rate" only goes to 31.0%. This means that noone was taxed more than 31.0% on thier income, compared to 35.0% in 2011 and 91.0% in 1963.

Seriously? You could not understand that? It has to be the easiest government chart like this that I have ever seen in regards to ease of readability.

 

[DangerClose]

The 'tea party' is in the same category as the 'looney left'. Both have jump the track.

Jumped the track how? Looks like they are generally for Constitutional stuff more than anyone else.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Jumped the track how? Looks like they are generally for Constitutional stuff more than anyone else.

You're right

 

[DangerClose]

You're right

I'll try again...

Jumped the track how?

 

[since9]

Am I the only one who is finding it hilarious that on any website that if someone disagrees with anything political by someone else the term Tea Party, Teabaggers, other insulting versions of it get used to discredit the person? I have seen it on the washington post, fox news, cnn, USA today and a few more sites.

It's become the latest vulgarity for anyone not supporting the "correct" side, whatever that is.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I'll try again...

Jumped the track how?

For moonbats supporting the Constitution is EXTREMIST, it must mean you believe black's only count for 3/5ths of a person and that slavery is OK. Of course promoting single payer health care, craddle to grave sustainment by government, intense gun control, industry crippling environmental regulations, eratication of private propery rights, and political protections for any behavior that deviates from the norm is completely acceptible "middle of the road" moderate mainstream politics. Any other point of view is racist, and immediately makes you guilty of incest and genocide.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Since left and right has nothing to do with a spectrum but simply a "two" party system. I would like to point out something I have been reading about German history between WW1 and WW2. Basically two parties took over Germany, Communist and Socialist, which are the same thing just differ on implementation. Yet the communist were called the "left" and the socialists called the right. The people of Germany were convinced those were there only two choices and that they were different. (Interesting U.S.'s left backed the communists)

Well we can see from history what happened when the right (which was really another form of the left) took over, would it have been much different if their "left" took over? I doubt it.

Do I see parallels in U.S. politics yes, it's why I believe the "left" and "right" are fake. Convincing people we need war, (both democrats and republicans, yep and was the same in Germany). We are by proxy a socialist country and these socialist ideas are supported by both those on the "left" and "right".

Ludwig Von Mises stated in a book written in the early 40's (Omnipotent Government) that if a country can't outright own business, yet regulate it to a point were the owners basically become managers of their own businesses, that even though not technically socialism, it is socialism because it has the same effect. These taxes and regulations are supported by both sides.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Since left and right has nothing to do with a spectrum but simply a "two" party system. I would like to point out something I have been reading about German history between WW1 and WW2. Basically two parties took over Germany, Communist and Socialist, which are the same thing just differ on implementation. Yet the communist were called the "left" and the socialists called the right. The people of Germany were convinced those were there only two choices and that they were different. (Interesting U.S.'s left backed the communists)

Well we can see from history what happened when the right (which was really another form of the left) took over, would it have been much different if their "left" took over? I doubt it.

Do I see parallels in U.S. politics yes, it's why I believe the "left" and "right" are fake. Convincing people we need war, (both democrats and republicans, yep and was the same in Germany). We are by proxy a socialist country and these socialist ideas are supported by both those on the "left" and "right".

Ludwig Von Mises stated in a book written in the early 40's (Omnipotent Government) that if a country can't outright own business, yet regulate it to a point were the owners basically become managers of their own businesses, that even though not technically socialism, it is socialism because it has the same effect. These taxes and regulations are supported by both sides.

The NAZI's were/are socialists/fascists. The liberal/socialists/communists/progressives in this country insist on calling anyone on the "right" politically a fascist, when fascists totally belong to the left. They should learn not to lie like that. Not to the public nor to themselves.:banghead:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The NAZI's were/are socialists/fascists. The liberal/socialists/communists/progressives in this country insist on calling anyone on the "right" politically a fascist, when fascists totally belong to the left. They should learn not to lie like that. Not to the public nor to themselves.:banghead:

I love watching the 'right' negate their historical political role, and responsibility in all States that have expressed all of those above items: Socialism, Communism, Fascism.

One of the most dangerous 'things' a group can do is consider the 'other(s)' to be the exclusive bearer of 'bad things'.

Deep down I hope that Bachmann is nominated, and elected President. It will be an interesting social experiment; as are all of these things.

 

[georg jetson]

I love watching the 'right' negate their historical political role, and responsibility in all States that have expressed all of those above items: Socialism, Communism, Fascism.

One of the most dangerous 'things' a group can do is consider the 'other(s)' to be the exclusive bearer of 'bad things'.

Deep down I hope that Bachmann is nominated, and elected President. It will be an interesting social experiment; as are all of these things.

The "right" never tries to "negate" it's role. It only attempts to say "I told you so..." and yet history repeats itself... again...

 

[PrayingForWar]

The NAZI's were/are socialists/fascists. The liberal/socialists/communists/progressives in this country insist on calling anyone on the "right" politically a fascist, when fascists totally belong to the left. They should learn not to lie like that. Not to the public nor to themselves.:banghead:

+1

We should never have forgotten how the "progressive" movement in this country was enthraled by the "advancements" of Mussolini and Hitler. It should be common sence that Hitler jailed commies not because he opposed them, but because they were competeing for the same mindsets of government control. If anyone here who reports to obozo's snitch site can do me a fdavor and tell their moonbat messiah to kiss my a$$, I would appreciate it.

 

[Daylen]

The "right" never tries to "negate" it's role. It only attempts to say "I told you so..." and yet history repeats itself... again...

Yes they do. Most crime today is on the hands of the right. I'm talking about the unconstitutional regulation and prohibition on drugs or intoxicating substances. Just like the crime wave everyone admits happened because of alcohol prohibition (which was at least done legally) we are still living with criminality caused by such right wing morality laws.

And people wonder why I emphatically distance myself from anything right wing. I'll take liberty over left wing or right wing any day.

 

[DangerClose]

Yes they do. Most crime today is on the hands of the right. I'm talking about the unconstitutional regulation and prohibition on drugs or intoxicating substances. Just like the crime wave everyone admits happened because of alcohol prohibition (which was at least done legally) we are still living with criminality caused by such right wing morality laws.

The thing about that is the left doesn't have much of any interest in changing things, either. You'd think all the potheads would rally behind Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who want to end the failed war on drugs, but nope.

Both the left and the right have their share of suck, but people still want to vote for "business as usual."

 

[georg jetson]

Yes they do. Most crime today is on the hands of the right. I'm talking about the unconstitutional regulation and prohibition on drugs or intoxicating substances. Just like the crime wave everyone admits happened because of alcohol prohibition (which was at least done legally) we are still living with criminality caused by such right wing morality laws.

And people wonder why I emphatically distance myself from anything right wing. I'll take liberty over left wing or right wing any day.

When I use the term "right", I am referring to the "extreme left = total government control and extreme right = anarchy". The "right" you speak of is the so called "religious right". I agree that they are equally as tyrannical. There's always some "do-gooder" out there trying to get in people's business... using the government to do it of course.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Yes they do. Most crime today is on the hands of the right. I'm talking about the unconstitutional regulation and prohibition on drugs or intoxicating substances. Just like the crime wave everyone admits happened because of alcohol prohibition (which was at least done legally) we are still living with criminality caused by such right wing morality laws.

And people wonder why I emphatically distance myself from anything right wing. I'll take liberty over left wing or right wing any day.

Ok, that's the sort of knee-jerk crap a teenage pot head spouts off. I was one, so I know. I have seen first hand and lost friends (they DIED) due to unregulated illegal drug use. It makes little sence to me to have unregulated legal drug use as a solution to all the crime addiction causes. Alcohol consumption has it's problems, cocaine/meth/herion are completely different demons. You don't "just legalize it" and make the crime associated with it, or the cost in human life go away.

The crimes associated with alcohol during prohibition were completely market related. You did not have murders due to drug related psycosis, increased burglaries by addicts, or hordes of people who could no longer function in society on a welfare system that should not exist.

The thing about that is the left doesn't have much of any interest in changing things, either. You'd think all the potheads would rally behind Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who want to end the failed war on drugs, but nope.

Both the left and the right have their share of suck, but people still want to vote for "business as usual."

The left will NEVER endorse a man who promises to weaken federal power even if he promises to hand out free weed.