Who Supported Ron Paul and Does Not Support the Tea Party Movement?

Ron Paul was a bit out there, and third parties really do more harm than good. My vote will go towards the lesser of two evils when it becomes apparent the third party option will only cost votes.

That being said, I will support any group or candidate that wants to hack and slash government, and introduce the Fair Tax.

Most people the group appeals to aren't the type to go march with signs and what not. Pitchforks maybe, I sharpened mine....

 

Yeah he was out there alright.

Warning of a gloomy future for the economy while his opponents got drunk on government koolaid and talked about how much more we were gonna SPEND while simultaneously ridiculing him.

He sure was out there alright. I mean if you look around you can see just how irrelevant all the things he talked about were.

Some people never learn. I really do not think America deserves freedom anymore.

 

I think that some people have it coming. I'm not sure how anybody can remain confident just because a politician tells them it's going to be ok. Unbelievable really.

 

Reading Ron Paul's "End the Fed" right now.

Very good read and it really makes you think how far and how LOW our government will go to keep certain people in office, etc. Really opens your eyes. Anyone else read any of his books?

 

Very possibly. The Paulista's always seemed to think more with their hearts than with their heads.

By the current definition, the tea party people are rich. The current definition of rich is "having a job and not being on government assistance."

However, the biggest concern within the tea party movement right now seems to be not accepting any influence from the Republican Party. The belief that the Republican Party has failed America is a core belief to every tea party person with which I have conversed.

That's a very interesting observation. Perhaps the tea parties need to be more kooky, to appeal to a larger disaffected base.

Nope -- nor have they really tried. They are just gathering strength right now.

On the other hand, they didn't steal enough votes from the Republican Party to hand the election and the nation to the most committed socialist ever to hold that office.

Exactly what I stated in my first post. I like this platform:

• Fiscal responsibility
• Lower taxes
• Less government
• States rights
• National security

Ron Paul's views on national security are so dysfunctional as to be clinically insane.

Every vote for Ron Paul was a vote for Barack Obama. You threw away your own vote.

I've seen a lot of attacks on Sarah Palin, but she went into the last election with more executive experience than:

• John McCain
• Barack Obama
• Joe Biden

Frankly, I don't think she'll be chosen as a candidate because she's too divisive. The left had a field day with sexist attacks on her and she's dead politically.

I mean seriously, have you read Palin Rumors? The entire election was a hatchet job by politically motivated "reporters."

That does appear to be the pragmatic assessment.

I think that a lot of Americans are sick and tired of the hubris coming out of kids in Washington who have never held a real job.

Many Americans are tired of being accused of being ignorant rednecks who cling to their bibles and their guns (instead of to their welfare checks).

I don't think Palin will be able to pull out of the nosedive which was the McCain/Palin 2008 campaign. I do agree that there very well could be far more power to be had staying out of major political races.

I think you're right -- and the tea party does appear to be testing this theory. It's a fairly new approach, so I expect it will take some time to determine what effects it will have.

The RINO's really have failed America. The Republican Party can't be healthy until it purges itself of that infection. No political party can succeed without expressing something that people can believe in. The RINO's believe only in their own reelections.

I think those people just want to be part of a trend. It's like the people who get involved in momentum investing. You can also think of them as lemmings.

Quite pragmatic. It was Otto von Bismarck who originally said "Politics is the art of the possible."

Oh hell yes.

That's why it is amazing that the groups are doing so well and "organizing" such large events. Very little in politics surprises me, and yet this is something which I did not expect.

 

You sure do talk a lot without saying much.

That's because you believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. Principle is foreign to you.

Way to discredit yourself. Exchange one accusation for another; I'm sure all liberals are on welfare.

Where's the meat?

 

I can see why one would vote for Obama over McCain. Its not exactly like McCain was the most appetizing candidate, to the right, or the left. Palin definitely lost him some votes, but probably gained him more than he lost.

Palin probably deserves her own thread, but you don't get to be the Governor of Alaska or the VP by being a dumbshit. Unsophisticated is probably a much more applicable term, and for most unsophisticated Americans, that is not a detractor for her as a person, only for her as the President of the USA. Every time people call her a dumbshit for being unsophisticated, or religious, or having traditional values, they are insulting the majority of the people in the US who identify with those same values. Wonderfully, it happens daily and is a large contributing factor(one of many) to the swelling ranks of the tea party. Every time they use the words "teabagger" or "racist" in application to these people who are essentially every day middle class Americans, it has exactly the same effect. In that spirit, I really wish Zibblu would come back and post more often, as I am already out of the closet and there is no going back.

I don't know enough about economics to weigh in on Ron Paul's "Do Away with the Fed" policies, but I do know that such a change would be radical at this juncture. I am also of the opinion that a truly Isolationist foreign policy would spell disaster for our economy. If Paul were as smart as he claims to be, he would tone down his rhetoric to Tea Party levels, ride into office with the support of independents, Republicans and the Tea Party and, once in office, try and do away with the Fed. Bill Clinton, chapter 5, verse 23.

 

The solution is simple. The US needs a balanced budget amendment and a flat tax. The flat tax is really important. Everyone feels the pain equally and according to thier means. The big issue today is that 47% of Americans pay no income tax. Why would they care if if the government raises the taxes on you and I?

The issue on military spending is that you get something called peace through strength. The US didn't go bankrupt from WW2 and the Korean War. Rather the US grew through the prosperity produced from the stability.

The US is spending a lot less money on defense today than it did during the 1960s. Though I agree that we need to start fighting smarter and cheaper. That bases abroad that are no longer needed should be shut down.

One way that we could should fighting a lot cheaper is to bring back the A1 Shyraider and F4U Corsair. They are a lot cheaper than fighter jets and a lot more powerful than helicopters. A WW2 type aircraft costs $500 an hour to operate as oppossed to $8000 an hour for a jet fighter. The F4U Corsair can fly at 434 miles per hour and has a ranhe of 1000+ miles and the A1 has 4 20mm canon and can carry 3600 lbs of bombs. The A1 actually proved its value in Vietnam and was valued for its ability to hover for hours above the battlefield.

Gold is just shiny metal. I'd rather have a manzana of coffee than 1 oz of gold.

 

I agree and I disagree. In fact, gold is going to be the currency of those who have while money will be the ....

 

Strength and imperialism are different things Bogart.

 

All of you that think the Tea Party movement has a chance at being the most powerful force in politics have short memories. They will be drowned out in a wave of cash... You seem to have forgotten that just last month the supreme court voted to allow corporations to contribute to campaigns directly.

They also, at the same time, voted to lift the McCain-Feingold ban on issue-oriented ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.

A little left over present from the Bush administration in the form of his appointees. You're welcome America.

 

You misread the decision. The decision allows organizations like labor Unions to spend their own money without limits to advertise political messages, not to donate to campaigns.

While I can appreciate that Labor Unions can now directly advertise up to and including election day, rather than having to channel money through 527 groups, I doubt the effects will be all that dramatic. That "corporate" money will be going in support of a variety of differing causes from all parts of the political spectrum, including the Tea Party.

Your baseless allegations that the Labor Unions are going to force US businesses into socialized unprofitably via large campaign contributions is nothing more than fear mongering. I like blaming Bush for everything as much as any Liberal, but don't you think a secret plot to promote labor unions is a bit over the top, even for Bush?

 

Fox News and their constant attacks on Obama was what catapulted him into the limelight. Is this about Bush vs. Obama and left vs. right?

There is a box. And you seem to be in it.

 

"TeaParty-Republicans' views on national security are so dysfunctional as to be clinically insane."

OK, so you get it! You understand exactly why the two groups rarely (if ever) overlap!

• Fiscal responsibility
• Lower taxes

You say you want fiscal responsibility, and less taxes but you're probably glad that we spent a trillion dollars last year blowing people up.

We could kill entitlement spending like Social Security & Medicare - you know, cut off all the workers who already paid in and were promised a retirement in exchange - or we could fight vicious political battles to trim the relatively insignificant discretionary accounts. Not only is the military budget gigantic, our foreign policy is sort of insane.

You know what really emboldens terrorists? Taking them seriously, fighting them, and making them into martyrs! Especially - oh and this is KEY to Osama bin Laden's stated strategy - especially if they can do so in a way that puts financial pressure on the United States.

Of course, like idiots, we're cutting taxes for the first time in the history of American warfare. That's the kind of denial of reality you that goes before a national collapse.

• Less government
• States rights

State's Rights, Limited Government, (unless...)

There seem to be so many exceptions to this that its hard to even hear again without snickering.

Are you really going to cheer when the federal government "gets out of the way" of the states who legalize dope, gay marriage, second official languages, etc..?

Are states free to turn down the ridiculous airport scanners, or cell-phone buggers, or any other invasive technology designed to circumvent 4th amendment protections for the sake of national security?

Small government indeed, so long as it has the power to spy on anyone at any time without disclosing a reason. Big enough to assassinate "terrorists" (regardless of citizenship) without trial, halfway across the world. Big enough to overthrow foreign commies and fascists of all kinds, and big enough to install fascists and commies of more favorable kinds... Big enough to nuke the planet to death a hundred times, but not big enough to take your taxes & acres & handguns, huh?

Well, Ron Paul wasn't running in the general election so I guess one would have had to write his name in... But yes, the Republican party lost the majority of the libertarian support for the first time in generations. You can talk about RINOs and how they're killing the party, but I'm pretty sure the moderates and social liberals took off long ago.

Sarah Palin was the image of the Republican establishment then, and if she's the keynote speaker for the Tea Party then the whole thing is just another PR spin of the old party. The people who still supported Bush and McCain and Palin will continue to support Palin and the basic agenda of spending more on military while cutting taxes and printing/borrowing money - of preaching small government while condemning "immoral lifestyles" and introducing new forms of military surveillance. That's what, 27% of the population?

"Coincidentally," Bush's approval rating upon exit and the number who now say Palin is qualified to be president is the exact same percentage of a population expected to develop Stockholm syndrome.

Good luck winning elections with that.

 

Wha??

.............

 

I'm going to have to assume you are talking about that other imaginary decision that only conservatives were briefed on via talking point memos.

The rest of us... well we know about the one affecting campaign finance. Great article in the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ourt-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-the-facts

It talks about the freedoms this has opened for corporations and unions. I am intrigued by how carefully you tried to make it seem like you truly believed this only affected labor unions.

Semantics are great, and though you are right, the legislation does actually only speak to allowing corporations and unions to spend money on "advertising" I'd have to assume one was being purposely naive to not consider a corporation or union spending multiple millions of dollars on ads for your campaign a hell of a campaign contribution... Especially considering that's money you don't have to raise or spend yourself and can re-purpose your available funds for other things.

But hey, maybe there are some who don't think a corporation being able to come in and pick up a candidates entire advertising tab for them is a campaign contribution. Those are probably the same people who thought this legislation was a good idea for democracy. Nice to meet you.

 

Will is just mad that the 'Paultards' didn't come back and join the GOP droid marches after we were thoroughly insulted during the primaries. I guess it's routine to return to your abusive relationships in politics; that is, if you have short memory and are codependent.

Maybe he's upset that we don't have a short memory, or that we don't play politics, or that we don't associate with unprincipled hypocrites with symptoms of bipolar disorder - insulting us one minute and asking for our help the next.

 

Not sure what you are talking about here.

I'm with you man. What we really need is some legislation that would shut groups like these up, while letting groups like this get their message out on election year. After all, the first group really has no constitutional rights as a group, so they should be silenced.

The above example demonstrates three things:
1) Campaigns didn't suffer for campaign dollars from influential and partisan parties from both sides of the aisle under the previous rules of engagement.
2) Voters make up their minds based on many factors, advertising often being the least of those factors.
3) The idea that Corporations and deep pockets contributors would all want people to vote the same way on any election issue is ridiculous.

I can appreciate the political value in pushing the talking point that the conservative supreme court is somehow or other ruining the nation. We ran that one for all it was worth after the 2000 election cycle. Thank goodness the American people have awoken to realize the truth of these talking points. I predict 2010 is going to be another sweeping election year in getting those evil conservatives out of power.

 

The US Military needs to get the job done on a budget. There's too much spending on missles when guns or artillery will get the job done. It doesn't make sense to send a missle dollar missle to take out three terrorists with ak-47s and a few donkeys.

For example, the F4 figher was not armed with a gun when deployed into Vietnam. That was stupid. The top brass soon realized that the figheter needed to be armed with a 20mm canon which made it possible to take out a MIG for $20 as oppossed to $50k. Even the Naval Vessels are lightly armed. Ships rarely have more than 1 5-inch gun.

Capitalism isn't Imperialism.

Gold is a store of wealth. But generally the ownership doesn't create wealth.

 

Oh hell yes!

We made the world (comparatively) safe for people to earn money and spend it. We turned slaves into consumers. The whole world became a richer place because of Pax Americana and the Democratic Peace.

True.

Or moved forward. Germany is a silly place to have a base. Israel would be a better idea.

Maybe Spectre gunships?

Gold is only worthwhile as long as people value it. It doesn't have the intrinsic value that food and ammunition have.

Gold only looks good right now because it's not depreciating in the same way most national currencies are.

At some point in the future we will be able to manufacture gold inexpensively. That should give the Paulista's conniptions.

Thank heavens! It's the second major victory for the U.S. Constitution in this century.

Free speech is making a comeback!