Feb Nat'l Tea Party Convention is "private" and costs $550 for entry!!!

[Matt Collins]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/michele-bachmann-to-speak_n_370748.html

This will be in Nashville and Palin and Bachmann will be there.



tickets to attend the february 4-6 "private event (http://www.surgeusa.org/actions/tea/nashville.htm)" can be purchased for $549 (http://tpn.eventbrite.com/?ref=eweb). The steep price tag does not include hotel lodging, which starts at $436.99 for a three-night package. (http://washingtonindependent.com/68922/bachmann-to-join-palin-at-national-tea-party-convention) the washington independent reported that just 160 of the hotel's 2,881 rooms were still available as of wednesday morning.Nothing like excluding the grassroots by making an impossibly high ticket price, eh? :confused:

[__27__]

We need to abandon the Tea Parties. The moment Sean Hannity was broadcasting live from them they were dead to us.

The right is trying to take them over because they are effective and creative, and the left is coming out with venom because they are scared of them. We cannot fight the right for control of them, the only thing we do by continuing to support tea parties in any way is make ourselves easy targets to be lumped in with the partisan right who only hates government because it's not their parties government.

Have faith in the ingenuity of our members to come up with something new, and just abandon the tea parties so the only ones left are the partisan right.

[jkr]

hahahahahahahahah
wadda bunch o shit

[JK/SEA]

Maybe we should hold a real tea party outside. Bring your RON PAUL 2012 signs.

[Reason]

the moment sean hannity was broadcasting live from them they were dead to us.


qft

[lynnf]

We need to abandon the Tea Parties. The moment Sean Hannity was broadcasting live from them they were dead to us.

The right is trying to take them over because they are effective and creative, and the left is coming out with venom because they are scared of them. We cannot fight the right for control of them, the only thing we do by continuing to support tea parties in any way is make ourselves easy targets to be lumped in with the partisan right who only hates government because it's not their parties government.

Have faith in the ingenuity of our members to come up with something new, and just abandon the tea parties so the only ones left are the partisan right.


change the name to something else with Patriot in it, copyright or trademark the name this time so the usurpers can be sued if they try it again, and start over.

lynn

[jmdrake]

Maybe we should hold a real tea party outside. Bring your RON PAUL 2012 signs.

That's a good idea! Maybe also a big sign that says "Tea Party - grassroots not invited". Or how about "This is what a REAL Tea Party looks like?" This could be a good opportunity to "unco-opt" ourselves.

[JK/SEA]

That's a good idea! Maybe also a big sign that says "Tea Party - grassroots not invited". Or how about "This is what a REAL Tea Party looks like?" This could be a good opportunity to "unco-opt" ourselves.

Exactly. Line up some speakers...like...maybe the champion of the Constitution, or something like that....:D

i can see it now, a faux tea party inside, and outside real patriots getting gassed and tazed,

[Oyate]

They knew better than to hold it in Phoenix.

[Nate]

maybe we should hold a real tea party outside. Bring your ron paul 2012 signs.

^this.

[Dianne]

Asked by Fox News if she would run in 2012 with Tea Party movement instigator Glenn Beck, Palin did not dismiss or endorse the idea.


WTF? Glenn Beck the tea party movement instigator? So who gets the $550. per head profit?

[LittleLightShining]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/michele-bachmann-to-speak_n_370748.html

This will be in Nashville and Palin and Bachmann will be there.


Nothing like excluding the grassroots by making an impossibly high ticket price, eh? :confused:

Compared to other "grassroots training events" the pricing seems reasonable:

National Tea Party Nation Convention Ticket ($549 = $9.95 fee) includes:

Ticket for the National Tea Party Convention - includes the Thursday night reception, Friday and Saturday training, and Saturday night closing banquet with keynote speaker Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska (2006-2009) and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Nominee.

Thursday, Feb 4, 2010

Registration: 3:00-6:00pm

Meet & Greet Reception with hors d' oeuvres: 6:30pm

Entertainment: 8:00pm


Friday, Feb 5, 2010

Registration (late arrivals): 7:30-8:30am

Continental Breakfast (provided): 7:30-8:30am

Speaker: 8:45-9:45am

Breakout Sessions: 10:00-11:00am, 11:15am-12:30pm

Lunch (provided): 12:30-2:00pm

Breakout Sessions: 2:00-3:00pm, 3:15-4:15pm, 4:30-5:30pm

Dinner (provided): 6:00-8:00pm

Tea Party Discussion: 8:00-9:30pm


Saturday, Feb 6, 2010

Continental Breakfast (provided): 7:30-8:30am

Speaker: 9:00-10:00am

Break

Discussion Panel, Q&A Session

Break

Discussion Panel: 11:30am-12:30pm

Dismiss for lunch, sight-seeing, preparation for banquet event

Banquet Registration: 6:00pm

Banquet with Keynote Speaker


Breakout Topics

American Majority: "Using New Media for Conservative Activism"

Smart Girl Politics: "How to Do Voter Registration Drives and Where to Find Conservative Votes" and "Women in Politics"

Bruce Donnely (SurgeUSA): Topic to be determined.

National Taxpayers Union: Topic to be determined.

Mark Skoda (Memphis Tea Party): "Collaboration in the Cloud-Applied Technology in the TEA Party Movement"

David DeGerolamo (NC Freedom Tea Party): "How to Unite State Tea Party Groups"

Lori Christenson (Evergreen/Conifer Tea Party): "How to Organize a Tea Party Group" (topic subject to change)

Keli Carender (Liberty Belle): Topic to be determined.

Dr. B. Leland Baker, "Dr. B" - Professor of Management and Homeland Security; Researcher/Analyst, and Author: "Using New Media for Conservative Activism"

Walter Fitzgerald: "Emergency Preparedness"


We need to abandon the Tea Parties. The moment Sean Hannity was broadcasting live from them they were dead to us.

The right is trying to take them over because they are effective and creative, and the left is coming out with venom because they are scared of them. We cannot fight the right for control of them, the only thing we do by continuing to support tea parties in any way is make ourselves easy targets to be lumped in with the partisan right who only hates government because it's not their parties government.

Have faith in the ingenuity of our members to come up with something new, and just abandon the tea parties so the only ones left are the partisan right.

The tea party folks have been marginalized by Republicans in VT much in the same way as C4L activists have. VT Tea Party Patriots represent a threat to the status quo here and some incumbent Republicans are shaking in their boots.

[Cowlesy]

The Foreign Policy view represented by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann is 100% the opposite of what I believe, and given how central it is to combatting terrorism, I see no reason to attend.

Domestically, I'd probably agree with both of them on many issues.

[erowe1]

If the real tea party movement wants to make a powerful statement, they'll go to Nashville and protest on the streets outside this dog and pony show while it's going on.

[JK/SEA]

Asked by Fox News if she would run in 2012 with Tea Party movement instigator Glenn Beck, Palin did not dismiss or endorse the idea.


WTF? Glenn Beck the tea party movement instigator? So who gets the $550. per head profit?

Good question. I'd like to see a 'projected' breakdown on where the money is going. Do we need to get an audit bill passed for this too?...

[LittleLightShining]

The Foreign Policy view represented by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann is 100% the opposite of what I believe, and given how central it is to combatting terrorism, I see no reason to attend.

Domestically, I'd probably agree with both of them on many issues.

I agree.

So let me ask you this... if the headliner was Ron Paul but a top-billed trainer held foreign policy beliefs that were directly in conflict with those of the organization's stated principles would that make you do more than think twice about attending?

[erowe1]

So let me ask you this... if the headliner was Ron Paul but a top-billed trainer held foreign policy beliefs that were directly in conflict with those of the organization's stated principles would that make you do more than think twice about attending?

There's no way I'd attend, but only on account of my personal finances. But I wouldn't hold it against anyone who can afford to drop $600 just to hear RP give a speech that we'll all be able to see on Youtube later from doing it if they want--it's their money. I would, however, have a problem with them calling that a "tea party." The tea parties I've been to were anything but black tie affairs.

[Anti Federalist]

We need to abandon the Tea Parties. The moment Sean Hannity was broadcasting live from them they were dead to us.

The right is trying to take them over because they are effective and creative, and the left is coming out with venom because they are scared of them. We cannot fight the right for control of them, the only thing we do by continuing to support tea parties in any way is make ourselves easy targets to be lumped in with the partisan right who only hates government because it's not their parties government.

Have faith in the ingenuity of our members to come up with something new, and just abandon the tea parties so the only ones left are the partisan right.

That +1776

"Patriot Parties"

[JK/SEA]

First thing now that should be done is change the name of Rands Tea Party moneybomb, to Patriot Party money bomb.

[LibertyEagle]

A "tea party" that charges admission, is no Tea Party at all.

[Anti Federalist]

A "tea party" that charges admission, is no Tea Party at all.

And that +1776

[LittleLightShining]

What you guys are failing to understand is that, despite the fact that these people didn't invent the idea of tea parties, they are using the name and are a pretty well organized outfit with regular nationwide conference calls for low level activists. They are not soliciting money from people on a regular basis. Though the groups are loosely connected with other lobbying groups, the individual units are still not funded by anything but voluntary contributions at meetings or functions. From what I have seen (having organized a tea party and still being privy to the information released by nat'l level organizers) despite the fact that there is a sort of central command, individual tea party groups are organizing and collaborating with other groups when appropriate.

So all this being said, this is a tea party convention, not a protest. Not a "tea party". It's an organizational meeting with a little sis-boom-bah thrown in. Not unlike other organizations who offer training conferences and the like to its members.

[erowe1]

What you guys are failing to understand is that, despite the fact that these people didn't invent the idea of tea parties, they are using the name

Actually, that's exactly the thing that we do understand. To call this event a tea party is ridiculous, unless they mean a literal tea party where millionaire widows sit around holding minuscule china cups while sticking their pinkies out.

Now if a bunch of us decide to go to Nashville and protest outside the place where they're doing this--that would be something you can call a tea party.

[LittleLightShining]

Actually, that's exactly the thing that we do understand. To call this event a tea party is ridiculous, unless they mean a literal tea party where millionaire widows sit around holding minuscule china cups while sticking their pinkies out.

Now if a bunch of us decide to go to Nashville and protest outside the place where they're doing this--that would be something you can call a tea party.

Bah! It's a tea party convention. For people who organized tea parties. Ron Paul people should have been front and center organizing these things when they exploded last spring. Instead we'll just cry about them stealing our ideas...

Maybe the whiners can cough up $$$ for a real liberty organization's fancy schmancy mailer and gather some petitions...

What would you protest in Nashville? Americans trying to get more organized to take down the liberal progressive democrats?

[erowe1]

Ron Paul people should have been front and center organizing these things when they exploded last spring.

As far as I'm aware, they were.



What would you protest in Nashville? Americans trying to get more organized to take down the liberal progressive democrats?

No. We'd protest cap and trade, universal health care, a second stimulus, letting Bernanke keep his job, nation building, and demand a Fed audit. Then all the neoconservative county chairs and Ivy League lawyers attending the learn-how-to-pretend-you're-a-regular-person-so-you-can-herd-all-the-ignorant-masses-at-your-astroturf-"tea parties" convention can look out and see how it's really done.

[PBrady]

Convention or not, $550 is absolutely ridiculous. If Palin or Bachmann actually cared about the movement, tickets would be enough to cover the renting of the facility and any other small costs that might be incurred. If they wanted to get serious about how to network tea parties more efficiently, they'd stream everything for free online for anyone interested...not make it a closed $550/ticket event.

[jmdrake]

What would you protest in Nashville? Americans trying to get more organized to take down the liberal progressive democrats?

Or neocons trying to usurp a movement and capitalize on the anti Obama backlash to propel themselves back into power?

[__27__]

Bah! It's a tea party convention. For people who organized tea parties. Ron Paul people should have been front and center organizing these things when they exploded last spring. Instead we'll just cry about them stealing our ideas...

Maybe the whiners can cough up $$$ for a real liberty organization's fancy schmancy mailer and gather some petitions...

What would you protest in Nashville? Americans trying to get more organized to take down the liberal progressive democrats?

It has NOTHING to do with caring about someone stealing an idea, it has EVERYTHING to do with changing the message the mainstream sees about "Tea Parties". Now that they have been co-opted you are NOT representing the ideals of liberty and limited government by attending or supporting them, you are representing a butt-hurt GOP just pissy about someone else being in control of mammoth government.

Perception is EVERYTHING. There is no good left from attending or supporting tea parties, only bad. It is time to move on to something else.

[RCA]

Fuck the Tea Parties. I'm sick of this shit.

[revolutionisnow]

It has NOTHING to do with caring about someone stealing an idea, it has EVERYTHING to do with changing the message the mainstream sees about "Tea Parties". Now that they have been co-opted you are NOT representing the ideals of liberty and limited government by attending or supporting them, you are representing a butt-hurt GOP just pissy about someone else being in control of mammoth government.

Perception is EVERYTHING. There is no good left from attending or supporting tea parties, only bad. It is time to move on to something else.

If people attend they should make signs and flyers advertising all the faults of these neo cons. Pro bailout signs, Pro war signs, etc

[LittleLightShining]

Convention or not, $550 is absolutely ridiculous. If Palin or Bachmann actually cared about the movement, tickets would be enough to cover the renting of the facility and any other small costs that might be incurred. If they wanted to get serious about how to network tea parties more efficiently, they'd stream everything for free online for anyone interested...not make it a closed $550/ticket event.I'm not disagreeing. I am taking into consideration what a similar event put on by another "liberty" organization that I'm not supposed to speak negatively of anywhere anymore and comparatively speaking, this tea party convention is basically the same idea for less money.


It has NOTHING to do with caring about someone stealing an idea, it has EVERYTHING to do with changing the message the mainstream sees about "Tea Parties". Now that they have been co-opted you are NOT representing the ideals of liberty and limited government by attending or supporting them, you are representing a butt-hurt GOP just pissy about someone else being in control of mammoth government.

Perception is EVERYTHING. There is no good left from attending or supporting tea parties, only bad. It is time to move on to something else.That might be the case where you are and elsewhere but that is not the case in VT. so I can't relate. I know VT is supposed to be just like everywhere else but it's stuff like this that proves I'm right and the people from Virginia are wrong. Maybe it's the GOP here or the tea party people here... or maybe it's just VT politics.

[Dieseler]

It is but a sign as the party in power loots the Treasury the party in decline loots the proles.
Save your money for something useful.

[__27__]

If people attend they should make signs and flyers advertising all the faults of these neo cons. Pro bailout signs, Pro war signs, etc

Subversion is not exactly in line with our message. I would much rather see a counter-party outside telling them (and the public/msm) that this new breed of tea parties does NOT represent us, and expressing our true message of liberty and limited government, GOP and Dem. Something more like posters with GW and Obama in orange jumpsuits saying "Partners in Crime".

[sofia]

palin gets paid $100,000 per speech...

thats where the money is going...

suckers....

[JK/SEA]

palin gets paid $100,000 per speech...

thats where the money is going...

suckers....

i'm shocked.......(shakes head rolls eyes)

yeah, i'm gettin' off this TP train. Too bad Rand is using it to promote his fund raiser. Maybe we should just start calling these money bombs 'fund raisers'. What a concept eh?

[pacelli]

Maybe we should hold a real tea party outside. Bring your RON PAUL 2012 signs.

That is an excellent idea. Bullhorns not optional.

[PBrady]

The media isn't allowed IN to the event, so giving them some news just outside could potentially upstage the whole thing.

[JK/SEA]

The media isn't allowed IN to the event, so giving them some news just outside could potentially upstage the whole thing.

Yes. And its in february. Plenty of time to organize and have an impromptu ...ahem...tea party outside. Nothing fancy .

[james1906]

For $550, I can go to Las Vegas for the weekend and have a Long Island Iced Tea party. That sounds more fun.

[Matt Collins]

:(
That's a good idea! Maybe also a big sign that says "Tea Party - grassroots not invited". Or how about "This is what a REAL Tea Party looks like?" This could be a good opportunity to "unco-opt" ourselves.

Exactly. Line up some speakers...like...maybe the champion of the Constitution, or something like that....:D

i can see it now, a faux tea party inside, and outside real patriots getting gassed and tazed,

The Foreign Policy view represented by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann is 100% the opposite of what I believe, and given how central it is to combatting terrorism, I see no reason to attend.

Domestically, I'd probably agree with both of them on many issues.


If the real tea party movement wants to make a powerful statement, they'll go to Nashville and protest on the streets outside this dog and pony show while it's going on.


Actually, that's exactly the thing that we do understand. To call this event a tea party is ridiculous, unless they mean a literal tea party where millionaire widows sit around holding minuscule china cups while sticking their pinkies out.

Now if a bunch of us decide to go to Nashville and protest outside the place where they're doing this--that would be something you can call a tea party.


The media isn't allowed IN to the event, so giving them some news just outside could potentially upstage the whole thing.

I'm starting to smell a good idea in the works ;)

Should I schedule a Meetup? :p

[JK/SEA]

:(









I'm starting to smell a good idea in the works ;)

Should I schedule a Meetup? :p

Well, we already have the time and place. ....:D

[RM918]

Bah! It's a tea party convention. For people who organized tea parties. Ron Paul people should have been front and center organizing these things when they exploded last spring. Instead we'll just cry about them stealing our ideas...

Maybe the whiners can cough up $$$ for a real liberty organization's fancy schmancy mailer and gather some petitions...

What would you protest in Nashville? Americans trying to get more organized to take down the liberal progressive democrats?

I would absolutely fucking LOVE it they took all our positions and gave us absolutely no credit. I would be totally elated, because I don't - nor does anyone else - really give two shits about the credit, if these guys can actually implement our policies I would be damned thrilled and would back them emphatically. Why wouldn't I? They're implementing ideas I agree with and it's finally being taken seriously.

The reason why I'm not thrilled, is because they're not. It's a huge, gigantic, ridiculous lie. The supposed 'tea party' masses have fallen to the neocons, they'd totally agree with that GOP purity test and said purity test is just a list of all the talking points Bush used not two years earlier. This repeated pitch that we only don't like Palin or the tea parties because we're 'jealous' is such unmitigated hogwash I don't even know how it's being spoken of in a serious context.

Do you really think any of them care about shrinking government? The current Republicans certainly haven't been bothering, did they just not get the memo? They've been using that line for ages and being absolute liars, why has this changed all of a sudden?

[Flash]

I have no idea why Sarah Palin is so popular. I cannot name one thing she did for the Conservative movement besides endorse Doug Hoffman (after it was safe and the Republican establishment got behind the guy,of course). Did she give an endorsement to Rand Paul, Chuck DeVore, Marco Rubio, etc..? Seems like she quit her job as Governor only to travel the country and promote her stupid book instead of promoting a true conservative change in this country.

[Matt Collins]

I have no idea why Sarah Palin is so popular. I cannot name one thing she did for the Conservative movement She wasn't John McCain.

[NYgs23]

$550? Sounds less like a Tea Party and more like a Cocktail Party.

[catdd]

Matt, let's organize a real Tea Party the same day and you can be one of the speakers. Screw those hijackers.

[dr. hfn]

Country Club Republicans

[LittleLightShining]

I would absolutely fucking LOVE it they took all our positions and gave us absolutely no credit. I would be totally elated, because I don't - nor does anyone else - really give two shits about the credit, if these guys can actually implement our policies I would be damned thrilled and would back them emphatically. Why wouldn't I? They're implementing ideas I agree with and it's finally being taken seriously.

The reason why I'm not thrilled, is because they're not. It's a huge, gigantic, ridiculous lie. The supposed 'tea party' masses have fallen to the neocons, they'd totally agree with that GOP purity test and said purity test is just a list of all the talking points Bush used not two years earlier. This repeated pitch that we only don't like Palin or the tea parties because we're 'jealous' is such unmitigated hogwash I don't even know how it's being spoken of in a serious context.

Do you really think any of them care about shrinking government? The current Republicans certainly haven't been bothering, did they just not get the memo? They've been using that line for ages and being absolute liars, why has this changed all of a sudden?

I was at a local Tea Party meeting Thursday night. The focus of the VT Tea Party folks is "Decreased Taxes, Decreased Dependence, More Accountability". That's it in a nutshell. There's nothing there I can't get on board with. I learned at the meeting that the TP group in one city in the state has broken off from the others because they want to focus on social issues. Makes me like this group even more.

At the meeting was myself, 2 potential House candidates (one of whom has been attending different VT Campaign For Liberty events and recently won a copy of a signed copy of "End The Fed"), another couple of guys who are involved with another somewhat underground "club" who discuss all politics in relation to the Constitution -- with a little Alex Jonesy type stuff thrown in for good measure (at the meeting I gave one of them a copy of a Ron Paul campaign dvd because he said that he didn't know that much about him), the organizer who, like me bit the bullet to become a Republican now that she gets the importance of being in a party (plus I begged her) a young libertarian business owner and a couple who have been to every tea party they could since the one I held in Montpelier who have also come to realize they need to be more politically active and are organizing the GOP committee in their town (previously unorganized). So all in all, a group I can totally relate to. You hear people talking about Beck but you also hear people talking about the Bilderberger's and Ron Paul.

Maybe the tea parties are different in other places, but everyone I've been involved with (even if they are staunch Republicans) through this movement in VT is just as fed up as I am and very fertile ground to plant seeds. Which was EXACTLY why I organized the Montpelier tea party in April. Take it however you want it but makes my heart want to sing, really. Especially since they are operating on absolutely nothing-- just like the VT Campaign for Liberty.

The fact that they are having a pricey convention for their leadership and whoever else wants to come doesn't bother me at all. I don't get fat mailers and robo-calls from their national HQ once a month telling me the sky is gonna fall if I don't send money (that the state chapters have yet to benefit from). If I-- in a leadership role (past tense) for C4L -- wanted to go to the Northeast Regional conference it would have cost me well over $1000 to travel, for lodging, food and to participate in all of the events. I'm still having a hard time getting over that one. And for people here to criticize the Tea Party folks for trying to do something similar-- minus the frantic nationwide GOP talking point solicitation campaign-- really rubs me the wrong way.

[angelatc]

Just want to be on record that I pretty much agree with everything LLS said in this thread.

One of my beefs was the March on Washington. We could have had a significant presence there. It would have been prime recruiting ground. CFL sponsored the event, meaning gave them money, but then scheduled their VA regional conference for the following week. How many people can do both?

Not cashing in on on the anti-spending fervor was expensive bureaucratic sluggishness if you ask me.

[Oyate]

I hate to place the burden on you young people but screw this pay-triot scene entirely. I'm down with camping out and doing our pow-wows. With my portable kitchen equipment alone I can feed hundreds. Let's have bonfires and activities to keep the kids busy and go skinny dipping at night. 24 hour patriot cycle.

[RM918]

I do worry somewhat about C4L dropping the ball on a lot of things, sort of like the national campaign last year. It does seem like trying to organize things into a central national power for us just never seems to work out very well, which is quite fitting considering the very movement we belong to is ardently against strong central powers.

[LittleLightShining]

Just want to be on record that I pretty much agree with everything LLS said in this thread.

One of my beefs was the March on Washington. We could have had a significant presence there. It would have been prime recruiting ground. CFL sponsored the event, meaning gave them money, but then scheduled their VA regional conference for the following week. How many people can do both?

Not cashing in on on the anti-spending fervor was expensive bureaucratic sluggishness if you ask me.Thanks, Angela. I'm really not trying to be a troublemaker, but the conversation needs to be had and I'm getting tired of the lack of critical analysis.


I hate to place the burden on you young people but screw this pay-triot scene entirely. I'm down with camping out and doing our pow-wows. With my portable kitchen equipment alone I can feed hundreds. Let's have bonfires and activities to keep the kids busy and go skinny dipping at night. 24 hour patriot cycle.SOOO with you on this! Except for the skinny-dipping part. But if others want to do it I wouldn't make them stop.


I do worry somewhat about C4L dropping the ball on a lot of things, sort of like the national campaign last year. It does seem like trying to organize things into a central national power for us just never seems to work out very well, which is quite fitting considering the very movement we belong to is ardently against strong central powers.Exactly!

[danielchoy]

Or neocons trying to usurp a movement and capitalize on the anti Obama backlash to propel themselves back into power?

So let's stop complaining and do something about it! This is our revolution! Take action now! We must stop the convention or disrupt it big time!

http://www.TeaPartyGuardian.ning.com - It's now or never!

[MN Patriot]

Would Shawn Hannity or Sarah Palin ever join the Libertarian Party? Never.

That is why the Libertarian Party needs to get active, pull their heads out of their butts, and start acting like a political party and RUN SOME CANDIDATES against the neo-cons. They need to be the political party running in the forefront of these events so the Establishment can't take it over.

I ran for Congress for the LP 11 years ago, but was exasperated with the national and state LP's lack of of a clear unified goal of actually running credible candidates.

The Republican Party needs to be put out of business. They have been a complete failure at stopping this country from becoming a corporatist / socialist nation.

The Tea Party Revolution needs to continue growing, and people in it need to abandon the Establishment Right Wing Party. The best option: The LP.

[parocks]

I agree with LLS as well.

My take on all of this is that Tea Partiers are Conservative Republicans who don't like RINOs and Obama's Socialism.

They think the Republican party listens to RINOs, Country Clubbers, Beltway Insiders too much, and Grass Roots Conservatives not enough.

What we should do, Ron Paul supporters who believe in Liberty, is to become involved in these Tea Party organizations, and help them accomplish those things that we can agree with. Stop Obama's Socialism. Work to make the Republican RINOs lose to Conservatives in the Primaries. Ron Paul is a Republican, a Conservative Republican, and Tea Partiers agree with much of what he has to say. There are disagreements on foreign policy. Ron Paul's position is the minority one.
Focus on the areas of commonality.

Ron Paul would be getting his votes in 2012 from Tea Partiers. Tea Partiers are Conservative Republicans who don't like RINOs.

Doing a protest at the Tea Party convention would be a terrible idea. We want the Tea Partiers to LIKE Ron Paul. I suspect that antiwar exDemocrat protesters have turned many a potential Ron Paul supporter into a Tea Partier. They seem to like most Conservative Republicans about as much as they like war.


Just want to be on record that I pretty much agree with everything LLS said in this thread.

One of my beefs was the March on Washington. We could have had a significant presence there. It would have been prime recruiting ground. CFL sponsored the event, meaning gave them money, but then scheduled their VA regional conference for the following week. How many people can do both?

Not cashing in on on the anti-spending fervor was expensive bureaucratic sluggishness if you ask me.

[jmdrake]

I agree with LLS as well.

My take on all of this is that Tea Partiers are Conservative Republicans who don't like RINOs and Obama's Socialism.

They think the Republican party listens to RINOs, Country Clubbers, Beltway Insiders too much, and Grass Roots Conservatives not enough.


That's certainly how it started. But RINOs have taken over parts of the teaparty movement. And the MSM is helping them. You saw the Huffington Post article that tried to portray Newt Gingrich as a "tea party" leader? He cut a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi about global warming!




What we should do, Ron Paul supporters who believe in Liberty, is to become involved in these Tea Party organizations, and help them accomplish those things that we can agree with. Stop Obama's Socialism. Work to make the Republican RINOs lose to Conservatives in the Primaries. Ron Paul is a Republican, a Conservative Republican, and Tea Partiers agree with much of what he has to say. There are disagreements on foreign policy. Ron Paul's position is the minority one.


Ummm...we've done that. And the disagreements are about more than foreign policy. While I don't want to beat a dead horse, Matt wasn't kicked out of the DCRP executive committee for talking about foreign policy. He was kicked out for aggressively going after REPUBLICAN politicians who supported the bailout and gun control and calling republicans out who locally support a new convention center plan that will require our city to take out a 1 billion loan over 30 years in the middle of a recession. :eek: And the DCRP chair who led the charge had jumped on the "Let's get rid of that RINO Dede Scozzafava" bandwaggon. :confused: For some people RINO is just the latest buzzword. And for the record we still have people inside DCRP exec committee. It's not an "either or" proposition.

And why are you only focused on Obama's socialism? Remember this Newsweek cover from the end of the Bush years?

http://www.galvestoneconomicreport.com/Pics/NewsweekSocialists.jpg



Focus on the areas of commonality.

Ron Paul would be getting his votes in 2012 from Tea Partiers. Tea Partiers are Conservative Republicans who don't like RINOs.


The rank and file are. But many of the leadership are RINOs themselves.



Doing a protest at the Tea Party convention would be a terrible idea. We want the Tea Partiers to LIKE Ron Paul. I suspect that antiwar exDemocrat protesters have turned many a potential Ron Paul supporter into a Tea Partier. They seem to like most Conservative Republicans about as much as they like war.

:rolleyes: Do you even know how the tea parties started? It was a revolt against the destruction of the constitution under Bush. It's great that people who don't like Obama want to go along with it, but in the end if it means a return to the Bush policies (which really weren't much different from the Obama policies) it's accomplished nothing. Have you forgotten the prescription drug benefit? Have you forgotten the "security and prosperity partnership" and the admission by Vicente Fox that this really was a plan to bring about the North American Union and a single regional currency? Have you forgotten the "no fly list" and Homeland inSecurity and the unPatriot Act? Because many who want to be seen as "leaders" of the tea party movement are in lock step with that agenda. I agree that we need to be careful on how we address this, but at the same time if we don't address it somehow then the tea party movement becomes neutralized controlled opposition.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Matt Collins]

That's certainly how it started. But RINOs have taken over parts of the teaparty movement. And the MSM is helping them.

And the DCRP chair who led the charge had jumped on the "Let's get rid of that RINO Dede Scozzafava" bandwaggon. :confused: For some people RINO is just the latest buzzword. And for the record we still have people inside DCRP exec committee. It's not an "either or" proposition.
And that's why I don't use the term "RINO"; it's too ambiguous. Many call Ron Paul a "RINO" because he isn't pro-war. Some people called McCain a RINO because he was soft on abortion (or whatever). It's like trying to say "I'm more Republican than you are" which makes no sense... the definition of "Republican" can change pending current trends. :mad:

That's why I use more definitive terms such as "limited-government" or "Constitutionalist" or even "limited-government conservative" because I think that helps to better define what I am describing.

[parocks]

1) Don't read Huffington Post. It's Leftist media. Yes, the Leftist media would like
people to think that Tea Party leaders are RINOs. The Leftist media would like to weaken Conservatives and strengthen RINOs. I'm no fan of Gingrich.

2) Perhaps being inside the Republican Party apparatus is not the place to be if you want to openly and publicly criticize the Republican Party. They might kick you out.

3) About the Newsweek cover - get your facts straight.
The Newsweek cover was published February 2009. Obama was President.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663
Published Feb 7, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

4) The Ron Paul Tea Parties were started to hype Ron Paul and to get Ron Paul's Liberty message out. People were looking for good historical tie-ins for money bombs. The Tea Party thing worked out great, the Guy Fawkes day thing worked out great.

The non Ron Paul Tea Parties were started when Obama was President.

5) The Republicans are superior to the Democrats, but leave a lot to be desired.
That's why people are trying to get rid of the RINO politicians in the Republican Party and replace them with Conservatives. If all the RINOs were replaced by Conservatives, we wouldn't have the bad stuff that Bush did. Obama is far worse, but Bush certainly wasn't perfect.



That's certainly how it started. But RINOs have taken over parts of the teaparty movement. And the MSM is helping them. You saw the Huffington Post article that tried to portray Newt Gingrich as a "tea party" leader? He cut a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi about global warming!




Ummm...we've done that. And the disagreements are about more than foreign policy. While I don't want to beat a dead horse, Matt wasn't kicked out of the DCRP executive committee for talking about foreign policy. He was kicked out for aggressively going after REPUBLICAN politicians who supported the bailout and gun control and calling republicans out who locally support a new convention center plan that will require our city to take out a 1 billion loan over 30 years in the middle of a recession. :eek: And the DCRP chair who led the charge had jumped on the "Let's get rid of that RINO Dede Scozzafava" bandwaggon. :confused: For some people RINO is just the latest buzzword. And for the record we still have people inside DCRP exec committee. It's not an "either or" proposition.

And why are you only focused on Obama's socialism? Remember this Newsweek cover from the end of the Bush years?

http://www.galvestoneconomicreport.com/Pics/NewsweekSocialists.jpg



The rank and file are. But many of the leadership are RINOs themselves.



:rolleyes: Do you even know how the tea parties started? It was a revolt against the destruction of the constitution under Bush. It's great that people who don't like Obama want to go along with it, but in the end if it means a return to the Bush policies (which really weren't much different from the Obama policies) it's accomplished nothing. Have you forgotten the prescription drug benefit? Have you forgotten the "security and prosperity partnership" and the admission by Vicente Fox that this really was a plan to bring about the North American Union and a single regional currency? Have you forgotten the "no fly list" and Homeland inSecurity and the unPatriot Act? Because many who want to be seen as "leaders" of the tea party movement are in lock step with that agenda. I agree that we need to be careful on how we address this, but at the same time if we don't address it somehow then the tea party movement becomes neutralized controlled opposition.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

1) Don't read Huffington Post. It's Leftist media. Yes, the Leftist media would like
people to think that Tea Party leaders are RINOs. The Leftist media would like to weaken Conservatives and strengthen RINOs. I'm no fan of Gingrich.


At the last Tea Party I went to Gingrich was given a speaking role even though he wasn't there. (It was a tape recorded message). I agree with you that the media left AND right has been being dishonest about the Tea Party movement. But (some) have been far to accommodating to RINOs.



2) Perhaps being inside the Republican Party apparatus is not the place to be if you want to openly and publicly criticize the Republican Party. They might kick you out.


Yeah they have the right to be RINOs all they want. That doesn't change the facts.



3) About the Newsweek cover - get your facts straight.
The Newsweek cover was published February 2009. Obama was President.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663
Published Feb 7, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009


Maybe I got the date wrong, but I got the substance right. That article was talking about how the Bush 2008 bailout set the groundwork for the Obama agenda. Back in Feb 2008 there was a report predicting that Bush's SOCIALIST 2008 stimulus plan would cause the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/IN8LUO095.DTL



4) The Ron Paul Tea Parties were started to hype Ron Paul and to get Ron Paul's Liberty message out. People were looking for good historical tie-ins for money bombs. The Tea Party thing worked out great, the Guy Fawkes day thing worked out great.


Actually the first modern tea parties started 2 years before the Ron Paul campaign in protest to the official 9/11 report. And I don't know why you think you're "correcting" me on that when I already pointed this out. :rolleyes:



5) The Republicans are superior to the Democrats, but leave a lot to be desired.
That's why people are trying to get rid of the RINO politicians in the Republican Party and replace them with Conservatives. If all the RINOs were replaced by Conservatives, we wouldn't have the bad stuff that Bush did. Obama is far worse, but Bush certainly wasn't perfect.

If you truly believe that then you've been asleep the past 20 years. The republicans and the democrats both push forward the same agenda! Neither is "worse". Neither is "better". Daddy Bush proposed NAFTA but couldn't get it through. His "surrogate son" (his words) Bill Clinton got it passed. There's no way Clinton would have gotten amnesty through and he didn't even try. Dubya made a good faith attempt. Dubya pushed forward the North American Union which will mean the absolute end of America as we know it! The only reason we don't have a single currency for the entire western hemisphere is because Hugo Chavez wouldn't play along. That's right. A socialist got in the way of Bush's total treason against this country. Sure Obama is carrying the ball further but it's the same ball. Really, watch this video and then try to tell me how Bush was any better.

YouTube - Vicente Fox hints about a North American Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGrn0hZlCQ)

[libertygrl]

We need to abandon the Tea Parties. The moment Sean Hannity was broadcasting live from them they were dead to us.

The right is trying to take them over because they are effective and creative, and the left is coming out with venom because they are scared of them. We cannot fight the right for control of them, the only thing we do by continuing to support tea parties in any way is make ourselves easy targets to be lumped in with the partisan right who only hates government because it's not their parties government.

Have faith in the ingenuity of our members to come up with something new, and just abandon the tea parties so the only ones left are the partisan right.

I agree. Excellent point. It's already been co-opted. Time for something new..

[speciallyblend]

simple solution, go protest the event with 10x more attendees outside and surround them with Ron Paul signs and Tea party Signs and call them out for the posers they are......

[LittleLightShining]

simple solution, go protest the event with 10x more attendees outside and surround them with Ron Paul signs and Tea party Signs and call them out for the posers they are......

Seriously... why not alienate ourselves as "kooky, lunatic fringe"? Makes sense to me :rolleyes:

[parocks]

1) I'm not saying that they aren't RINOs. The Tea Parties are against the RINOs.
I'm not defending or attacking the Republican Party in Tennessee. But I'm guessing that they don't like it when their leadership attacks Republicans.

2) Newsweek is liberal. I wasn't interested in using a liberal article as a source of truth. I was simply pointing out that you were wrong about the date and who was President when the article was published.

3) The Tea Parties that we're discussing this now aren't the same as either the Ron Paul tea parties or the 9/11 tea parties (which I admit I know little about).
The tea parties that we're talking about started this year with this Santelli fella.

4) The majority of the people who want to stop Socialism are Conservatives. They're typically in the Republican Party. Ron Paul is a Republican who wants to stop Socialism. What I can tell you about George Bush is that he isn't the President right now. Obama is. You missed your opportunity to stop George Bush. He is no longer the President. You haven't missed your opportunity to stop Obama. I am not giving blanket praise to Republicans. I am not saying that
RINOs don't exist. RINOs should be replaced with Conservatives.


At the last Tea Party I went to Gingrich was given a speaking role even though he wasn't there. (It was a tape recorded message). I agree with you that the media left AND right has been being dishonest about the Tea Party movement. But (some) have been far to accommodating to RINOs.



Yeah they have the right to be RINOs all they want. That doesn't change the facts.



Maybe I got the date wrong, but I got the substance right. That article was talking about how the Bush 2008 bailout set the groundwork for the Obama agenda. Back in Feb 2008 there was a report predicting that Bush's SOCIALIST 2008 stimulus plan would cause the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/IN8LUO095.DTL



Actually the first modern tea parties started 2 years before the Ron Paul campaign in protest to the official 9/11 report. And I don't know why you think you're "correcting" me on that when I already pointed this out. :rolleyes:



If you truly believe that then you've been asleep the past 20 years. The republicans and the democrats both push forward the same agenda! Neither is "worse". Neither is "better". Daddy Bush proposed NAFTA but couldn't get it through. His "surrogate son" (his words) Bill Clinton got it passed. There's no way Clinton would have gotten amnesty through and he didn't even try. Dubya made a good faith attempt. Dubya pushed forward the North American Union which will mean the absolute end of America as we know it! The only reason we don't have a single currency for the entire western hemisphere is because Hugo Chavez wouldn't play along. That's right. A socialist got in the way of Bush's total treason against this country. Sure Obama is carrying the ball further but it's the same ball. Really, watch this video and then try to tell me how Bush was any better.

YouTube - Vicente Fox hints about a North American Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGrn0hZlCQ)

[parocks]

Seriously... why not alienate ourselves as "kooky, lunatic fringe"? Makes sense to me :rolleyes:


Well, it doesn't bother others. Seriously, there are a lot of people here whose response to many things is "protest". There are antiwar people here. What about a antiwar protest. "Nothing says Nobel Peace Prize like 30,000 additional troops."
You know, that kind of thing. It'll give people something to do instead of protesting our allies.

[JK/SEA]

I'm sure at one time Thomas Jefferson may have been labeled a kook by 'someone' at some time..

Again, Palin is not somebody i would label a friend to the planks of the Ron Paul Revolution, and for me and the fact she WAS effing aligned with McCain, is my line in the sand. Maybe if somebody could perform a mind meld with her and get her to support a non-intervention policy and come out STRONG on ENDING THE FED, (and in my best British accent) etc etc....i might be able to get behind that.

So having her as keynote at a meeting called TEA PARTY (and as we all know, TEA PARTY was coined by the LIBERTy grassroots aka Ron Paul supporters) is just toooo much for me to compromise my principals on.

Sorry.

[Ethek]

I agree. Excellent point. It's already been co-opted. Time for something new..

Ive been thingking about 'something new' since, I walked into a teaparty in Somerset KY with 700 angry people there totally without any grounding in a philosphy of liberty... easy prey for any politician with an agenda.

I was one of two people there pushing Rand Paul to the totally uninformed I figured it was time to CoOpt the movement back, but not directly.

I am already working on something to 'Re-CoOpt' the TeaParty movement.
Just a small blog at http://gadsdenunion.ning.com now. I moving to a more ambitious drupal system soon at http://www.gadsdenunion.com. The CSS is definatly proving to be a learning curve.

As far as the convention, I say instead of Ron Paul signs in Nashville we introduce a new rising GOP senator from next door KY. Rand Paul. Sarah will see it forwhatever influence she has.

[jmdrake]

1) I'm not saying that they aren't RINOs. The Tea Parties are against the RINOs.
I'm not defending or attacking the Republican Party in Tennessee. But I'm guessing that they don't like it when their leadership attacks Republicans.


So you're belaboring the obvious.



2) Newsweek is liberal. I wasn't interested in using a liberal article as a source of truth. I was simply pointing out that you were wrong about the date and who was President when the article was published.


You're really proud of yourself when you score a tiny point aren't you? Once you get done patting yourself on the back stop and think about the truth of this statement. Socialism is the government picking winners and losers. Or rather this is a step beyond socialism to straight up fascism / communism. Dress it up all you want. Dodge the issue all you want. But it's hypocritical for those who backed the bailout (I know that's not you) to cry "socialism" when those bailouts continue the next year under a different president.



3) The Tea Parties that we're discussing this now aren't the same as either the Ron Paul tea parties or the 9/11 tea parties (which I admit I know little about).
The tea parties that we're talking about started this year with this Santelli fella.


That's the lie the MSM wants you to believe. That "Santelli" somehow created a movement. The movement already existed. Santelli, Glen Beck and others simply recognized this and jumped on the bandwaggon.



4) The majority of the people who want to stop Socialism are Conservatives. They're typically in the Republican Party. Ron Paul is a Republican who wants to stop Socialism. What I can tell you about George Bush is that he isn't the President right now. Obama is. You missed your opportunity to stop George Bush. He is no longer the President. You haven't missed your opportunity to stop Obama. I am not giving blanket praise to Republicans. I am not saying that
RINOs don't exist. RINOs should be replaced with Conservatives.

Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush. And if we replace him with a white republican George Bush what have we accomplished? I'm not saying republicans are inherently bad. Neither are democrats. The leadership of both parties are controlled by those who don't have this country's best interest at heart. Look at Rick Perry jumping on the "secession" train when he was the one sacrificing Texas and U.S. sovereignty on the alter of the NAFTA superhighway! You still look at party. I look at issues. Parties are helpful for advancing issues. Stopping "Obama" isn't an issue. Stopping cap and trade, the NAU, the Patriot Act, these unconstitutional wars, Obamacare, these bailouts, no child left behind and other federal takeovers of state sovereignty, the unconstitutional federal reserve and over regulation are issues. When members of the GOP want to help on these issues great. When members of the democratic party want to help great.

[parocks]

You think that "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush" huh?

Well, that explains a lot.

You think Ron Paul believes that "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush"?

You think that if Ron Paul runs for President in 2012, he'll say "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush"?

I don't think we have too much more to discuss. You think
"Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush". I don't.

Just curious, Bush was President for 8 years. What major Auto company did he take over? You know that Obama's people took dealerships away from people who donated to Republicans and let people who gave $ to Democrats keep their dealerships. Full blast Socialism - government ownership of Business - from Obama.

You may see the phrase - Said by someone who thinks "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush" - on other threads.



So you're belaboring the obvious.



You're really proud of yourself when you score a tiny point aren't you? Once you get done patting yourself on the back stop and think about the truth of this statement. Socialism is the government picking winners and losers. Or rather this is a step beyond socialism to straight up fascism / communism. Dress it up all you want. Dodge the issue all you want. But it's hypocritical for those who backed the bailout (I know that's not you) to cry "socialism" when those bailouts continue the next year under a different president.



That's the lie the MSM wants you to believe. That "Santelli" somehow created a movement. The movement already existed. Santelli, Glen Beck and others simply recognized this and jumped on the bandwaggon.



Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush. And if we replace him with a white republican George Bush what have we accomplished? I'm not saying republicans are inherently bad. Neither are democrats. The leadership of both parties are controlled by those who don't have this country's best interest at heart. Look at Rick Perry jumping on the "secession" train when he was the one sacrificing Texas and U.S. sovereignty on the alter of the NAFTA superhighway! You still look at party. I look at issues. Parties are helpful for advancing issues. Stopping "Obama" isn't an issue. Stopping cap and trade, the NAU, the Patriot Act, these unconstitutional wars, Obamacare, these bailouts, no child left behind and other federal takeovers of state sovereignty, the unconstitutional federal reserve and over regulation are issues. When members of the GOP want to help on these issues great. When members of the democratic party want to help great.

[Ethek]

Santelli did have his clipped played on Glen Beck. The man had a pretty populist rant on the floor there in Chicago... "who here wants to pay for your neighbors mortgage?" answered with jeers and everything.

Glen pretty much just stumbled into an ready made excuse to rouse up a lot of angry people who are as unprincipled about true liberty as the democrats are unprincipled in how to heed the restraints of the constitution.

If anything we should beat up ourselves for not going door-to-door and instilling in conservatives a true philosophy of liberty and how to apply it to people like Glen Beck, even after McCain went down in flames

Lead , follow or get out of the way. Paine gets credit for Common Sense, Glen Beck gets credit for stirring the masses this go around. Luckily we had some principled elites with a grounding in Lockes Natural Law to fight the revolution and structure the constitution, with little left to Thomas Paine.

We are the elites of the liberty movement this time. It really can't be denied. Most of us are tied into the tea-Party movement. We have the reason and rational thought among a lot of the irrational people there. People do notice when Ron Paul people speak. It sticks.

Its time to stop bickering and step in to raise the level of the dialog by people in 912 groups. Raise them above the issues and give them that grounding that only a firm knowledge of natural law can bring. Teach them to wield an unshakable set of principles in debates with statists instead of religious slogans and signs with Sarah Palin on them.

If the populist revolution falls flat its not because of Glen Beck, its because the Ron Paul movement did not rise up to the challenge in front of it.

[LittleLightShining]

If the populist revolution falls flat its not because of Glen Beck, its because the Ron Paul movement did not rise up to the challenge in front of it.

+ infinity

[Liberty Star]

These seem more like Hollywood moguls organized Clinton fund raisers than anything associated with American grassroots.

[Matt Collins]

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/12/15/boycott-the-tennessee-tea-party-convention/


YouTube - TEA PARTY BEING HIJACKED - BOYCOTT THE TENNESSEE 2010 PALIN / BACHMANN EVENT - SPREAD VIRAL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfj5MS8RsTA&feature=player_embedded)

[jmdrake]

You think that "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush" huh?

Well, that explains a lot.

You think Ron Paul believes that "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush"?

You think that if Ron Paul runs for President in 2012, he'll say "Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush"?

I don't think we have too much more to discuss. You think
"Obama is simply a black democratic George Bush". I don't.


Do you think Ron Paul would endorse Bush? He didn't endorse McCain. There's a reason for that. Instead he gave a joint 3 candidate press conference with Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. McKinney and Nader are both more liberal than Obama. That's because Ron Paul get's it and you don't! This isn't about getting as many "Rs" in office as possible. It's about standing up for principle instead of standing up for party. You are simply a partisan hack that has no idea what this movement is really about. If you want to be a hack fine. But quit hiding behind Ron Paul to do it.



Just curious, Bush was President for 8 years. What major Auto company did he take over?


Are you serious? What major auto company went bankrupt while he was in office? Banks went bankrupt and Bush did the same thing with the banks that Obama did with the auto companies. It's the same freaking precedent. It's the same freaking agenda. Bush simply didn't have the opportunity to take over any car companies. Clinton didn't bail out any banks either. Do you think he wouldn't have if he didn't have the opportunity? Oh yeah. I remember. You only look at history when you think it helps your cause. Otherwise you choose to ignore it. Enough with the intellectual dishonesty. You aren't fooling anybody with it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Romulus]

I hope there is a good showing outside of this gig... maybe with a sign saying, 'can anyone spare $550?' what a joke...

[parocks]

Give me a link to a mainstream news story that describes Bush administration officials making hiring and firing decisions at a bank. You're so passionate that the 2 cases are the same thing, you should have no trouble finding that link. I could be wrong about the banks, but I think I'm right. Prove me wrong with a link where the Bush Adminstration took over the actual management of the banks. Not simply giving them $. That's the very important distinction I'm making. So, prove your case.

It's not about getting as many "Rs" in office, it's about getting as many Conservatives in office. Ron Paul is a Conservative. The best there is. He's also a Republican. If you think about it, you might find that almost all of the most Conservative elected officials are Republican. You might find it difficult to list more than a handful of Conservative Democrats, and those Conservative Democrats are typically much less Conservative than a large number of Conservative Republicans.

Do you support Obama's health care plan? It's not very Liberty friendly, you know.
If it passes, there's a good chance that people will be jailed for not buying health insurance. Who do you think has been voting for this bill and who has been voting against it? Republicans, who you think are indistinguishable from Democrats, are voting against it. Democrats are voting for it. Right now, with this one very very important issue, the worst RINO the Republicans have is voting the appropriate way, and the most Conservative Democrat is voting the wrong way. That could change, but right now, that's how it's standing. But you think the 2 parties are indistinguishable. Great.

I slogged through New Hampshire for Ron Paul, knocking on doors, handing out lit,
waving signs, poll watching on election day. You I assume did something similar back in 2007-2008 for Ron Paul. You mentioned McCain. I'm not talking about McCain. From watching the debates, where almost every one of Ron Paul's opponents was a dick to him, I'm not surprised Ron Paul didn't endorse McCain.
Ron Paul wanted to speak at the convention and wanted his delegates at the convention. That didn't happen, and I believe that had something to do with McCain. Another reason not to support McCain. Well, with all that McCain being a dick to Ron Paul, did Ron Paul endorse Obama? No.

Right here on this very site, some are working to get Conservative / Liberty candidates elected to office. Most if not all have policy differences with Ron Paul, but most people here know that it's better to have a Conservative / Liberty candidate who is not perfect than a Liberal / Socialist Democrat. Rand Paul asked for Sarah Palins support, Peter Schiff does not rule out military intervention. And you know what, almost all of these candidates we're supporting are Republicans.

So, anyway, find that link to Bush adminstration officials actively adminstrating banks.



Do you think Ron Paul would endorse Bush? He didn't endorse McCain. There's a reason for that. Instead he gave a joint 3 candidate press conference with Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. McKinney and Nader are both more liberal than Obama. That's because Ron Paul get's it and you don't! This isn't about getting as many "Rs" in office as possible. It's about standing up for principle instead of standing up for party. You are simply a partisan hack that has no idea what this movement is really about. If you want to be a hack fine. But quit hiding behind Ron Paul to do it.



Are you serious? What major auto company went bankrupt while he was in office? Banks went bankrupt and Bush did the same thing with the banks that Obama did with the auto companies. It's the same freaking precedent. It's the same freaking agenda. Bush simply didn't have the opportunity to take over any car companies. Clinton didn't bail out any banks either. Do you think he wouldn't have if he didn't have the opportunity? Oh yeah. I remember. You only look at history when you think it helps your cause. Otherwise you choose to ignore it. Enough with the intellectual dishonesty. You aren't fooling anybody with it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Give me a link to a mainstream news story that describes Bush administration officials making hiring and firing decisions at a bank.


If I do will you finally admit you are wrong?

http://www.davemanuel.com/2009/04/23/andrew-cuomo-government-pressured-bank-of-america-to-complete-merrill-lynch-merger-threatened-jobs-of-executives/



You're so passionate that the 2 cases are the same thing, you should have no trouble finding that link. I could be wrong about the banks, but I think I'm right. Prove me wrong with a link where the Bush Adminstration took over the actual management of the banks. Not simply giving them $. That's the very important distinction I'm making. So, prove your case.


So let me get this straight. If the government throws unlimited amounts of taxpayer money at private business it's ok as long as there are no strings attached? You call that capitalism? I call it highway robbery! But the truth of the matter is that Paulson and Bernanke were threatening the CEO of Bank of America before TARP! Worse the 2008 Bush "stimulus" package helped set up the whole crisis by encouraging SOCIALIST institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take out bigger and more risky loans.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/IN8LUO095.DTL



It's not about getting as many "Rs" in office, it's about getting as many Conservatives in office. Ron Paul is a Conservative. The best there is. He's also a Republican. If you think about it, you might find that almost all of the most Conservative elected officials are Republican. You might find it difficult to list more than a handful of Conservative Democrats, and those Conservative Democrats are typically much less Conservative than a large number of Conservative Republicans.


Two out of the three people Ron Paul recommended people vote for after he withdrew from the presidency were liberals. (Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader). Ron Paul also offered his support to libertarian (Bob Barr), but that was rebuffed. The only "conservative" was Chuck Baldwin. He eventually got Paul's singular endorsement after Barr acted like a jerk and demanded a singular endorsement. I campaigned for and voted for Barr by the way.

The fact that you are trying to differentiate the Bush bailout is telling. I don't care you much lipstick you want to put on that pig, it's still a pig. It doesn't fit my definition of conservative and I don't think it fits Ron Paul's definition either.



Do you support Obama's health care plan? It's not very Liberty friendly, you know.


Do you support the Bush administration's position that they can torture children? :rolleyes: I'm getting tired of your stupid childish straw men arguments. Just because I don't buy your "Bush was better" argument doesn't mean that I support everything Obama puts forward. For the record I was against the Bush prescription drug benefit. Where YOU against it? Or do you think it was somehow "conservative"?



If it passes, there's a good chance that people will be jailed for not buying health insurance. Who do you think has been voting for this bill and who has been voting against it? Republicans, who you think are indistinguishable from Democrats, are voting against it. Democrats are voting for it. Right now, with this one very very important issue, the worst RINO the Republicans have is voting the appropriate way, and the most Conservative Democrat is voting the wrong way. That could change, but right now, that's how it's standing. But you think the 2 parties are indistinguishable. Great.


Prescription drug benefit. NAFTA. North American Union. Bailouts. Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac. Go down the line and there's precious little difference. The republicans are voting against this bill mainly because Obama is for it. Where were this Republicans when it was time to stand up to Bush's biggest increase in entitlement spending in a generation? Where were they when it was time to stand up against RealID or the Patriot Act or his tripling the size of government? You don't have an answer for that do you? Where were they when Bush took away our freedom to fly without some unelected beuracrat deciding if we should be on a "list"? I'm glad they are willing to "stand" now but they're mainly doing it for partisan advantage, not for principle.



I slogged through New Hampshire for Ron Paul, knocking on doors, handing out lit,
waving signs, poll watching on election day. You I assume did something similar back in 2007-2008 for Ron Paul. You mentioned McCain. I'm not talking about McCain. From watching the debates, where almost every one of Ron Paul's opponents was a dick to him, I'm not surprised Ron Paul didn't endorse McCain.
Ron Paul wanted to speak at the convention and wanted his delegates at the convention. That didn't happen, and I believe that had something to do with McCain. Another reason not to support McCain. Well, with all that McCain being a dick to Ron Paul, did Ron Paul endorse Obama? No.


Right! Paul didn't endorse McCain or Obama! Neither did I! Paul won't endorse Palin either! Mark my word on that! I don't know why you can understand Paul not supporting McCain or Obama but you somehow think I support Obama. :rolleyes:



Right here on this very site, some are working to get Conservative / Liberty candidates elected to office. Most if not all have policy differences with Ron Paul, but most people here know that it's better to have a Conservative / Liberty candidate who is not perfect than a Liberal / Socialist Democrat. Rand Paul asked for Sarah Palins support, Peter Schiff does not rule out military intervention. And you know what, almost all of these candidates we're supporting are Republicans.


And NONE OF THESE PEOPLE BACKED THE 2008 BUSH BAILOUT! Further Rand didn't ask for Palin's support. Someone else asked if he'd like it and he said "sure". It's called being polite.



So, anyway, find that link to Bush adminstration officials actively adminstrating banks.

Already did that. The fact that you didn't know this already shows you haven't really been paying attention to the whole bailout story. Maybe if you did you wouldn't be so quick to stump for people like Palin.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[parocks]

I haven't read all of your links yet, but they don't prove your point.
The difference is this
Obama did take over GM and Chrysler.
Bush allegedly threatened to fire certain bankers.

In the case of Bush
1) Alleged, not proven.
2) Threatened, not done.

I didn't set up the false dichotomy, you are.
I'm not saying that what Bush did was good. I'm saying what Obama is doing
is worse.

I got an email from the Campaign For Liberty a couple days ago. I assume you did too.

Here's 3 paragraphs from it.

*****************************
We’re helping keep back many of the big government power grabs many thought would already be law – like Cap and Tax and nationalized health care.

Though many of the battles still rage on, we’ve proven to the statists in Washington, D.C. we won’t just roll over and play dead for their radical freedom-robbing agenda. If they want to continue to try to take our liberty, well – now they’ve got a fight on their hands like never before.

But the truth is, there are so many battles to fight right now, we’re being stretched thin at the most crucial time.

*************************************

Wow, what the Campaign For Liberty is saying is remarkably consistent with what I've been saying.

Nowhere in that email is there a long screed about how what Obama is trying to do is really not any worse than what Bush did.

Basically, the email said that Job #1 is STOP OBAMA. Which is one of my key points, perhaps my central point.

The reason you keep on bring Palin up is, I suppose, to counter my argument that Palin shouldn't be attacked at this
point because she's doing a good job at Job #1 STOP OBAMA. We argued a little bit about whether or not, currently,
Palin is the most effective Republican at Job #1 STOP OBAMA, or whether it's someone else like Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Huckabee,
or someone else. It doesn't really matter, because most (if not all) of those people, at least when they're on the Job #1 STOP OBAMA,
and they're at all effective, should be helped, not hindered or attacked, and at the very least left alone.

But then you decide that you were going to talk endlessly about which President is better.

Point being, Bush is no longer the President. Obama is. And what Obama is doing is really really bad, and we all should be working
together on Job #1 STOP OBAMA. People can disagree - and are - about whether Bush was worse than Obama, or Obama was worse than
Bush, or they were equally bad. What people can't disagree about is that Obama is the President now, and the time to oppose Bush
passed in January of this year.

The message from the Campaign for Liberty is clear.

It is not Job #1 - bicker about Bush vs Obama, or Job #1 - debate Palins qualifications or sincerity.

The email that I got 2 days ago, and that you probably got too, actually asked, not in so many words "what should be Job #1"

And there were 4 choices.

1) Stop Obama's Cap and Trade
2) Stop Obama's Healthcare plan
3) Audit the Fed
4) Stop Obama from reauthorizing the Patriot Act and implementing Dangerous ID

That's the message. Get on message.


If I do will you finally admit you are wrong?

http://www.davemanuel.com/2009/04/23/andrew-cuomo-government-pressured-bank-of-america-to-complete-merrill-lynch-merger-threatened-jobs-of-executives/



So let me get this straight. If the government throws unlimited amounts of taxpayer money at private business it's ok as long as there are no strings attached? You call that capitalism? I call it highway robbery! But the truth of the matter is that Paulson and Bernanke were threatening the CEO of Bank of America before TARP! Worse the 2008 Bush "stimulus" package helped set up the whole crisis by encouraging SOCIALIST institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take out bigger and more risky loans.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/IN8LUO095.DTL



Two out of the three people Ron Paul recommended people vote for after he withdrew from the presidency were liberals. (Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader). Ron Paul also offered his support to libertarian (Bob Barr), but that was rebuffed. The only "conservative" was Chuck Baldwin. He eventually got Paul's singular endorsement after Barr acted like a jerk and demanded a singular endorsement. I campaigned for and voted for Barr by the way.

The fact that you are trying to differentiate the Bush bailout is telling. I don't care you much lipstick you want to put on that pig, it's still a pig. It doesn't fit my definition of conservative and I don't think it fits Ron Paul's definition either.



Do you support the Bush administration's position that they can torture children? :rolleyes: I'm getting tired of your stupid childish straw men arguments. Just because I don't buy your "Bush was better" argument doesn't mean that I support everything Obama puts forward. For the record I was against the Bush prescription drug benefit. Where YOU against it? Or do you think it was somehow "conservative"?



Prescription drug benefit. NAFTA. North American Union. Bailouts. Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac. Go down the line and there's precious little difference. The republicans are voting against this bill mainly because Obama is for it. Where were this Republicans when it was time to stand up to Bush's biggest increase in entitlement spending in a generation? Where were they when it was time to stand up against RealID or the Patriot Act or his tripling the size of government? You don't have an answer for that do you? Where were they when Bush took away our freedom to fly without some unelected beuracrat deciding if we should be on a "list"? I'm glad they are willing to "stand" now but they're mainly doing it for partisan advantage, not for principle.



Right! Paul didn't endorse McCain or Obama! Neither did I! Paul won't endorse Palin either! Mark my word on that! I don't know why you can understand Paul not supporting McCain or Obama but you somehow think I support Obama. :rolleyes:



And NONE OF THESE PEOPLE BACKED THE 2008 BUSH BAILOUT! Further Rand didn't ask for Palin's support. Someone else asked if he'd like it and he said "sure". It's called being polite.



Already did that. The fact that you didn't know this already shows you haven't really been paying attention to the whole bailout story. Maybe if you did you wouldn't be so quick to stump for people like Palin.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

I haven't read all of your links yet, but they don't prove your point.
The difference is this
Obama did take over GM and Chrysler.
Bush allegedly threatened to fire certain bankers.


:rolleyes: Were GM and Chrysler facing bankruptcy in 2008? No? THEN YOU REALLY DO NOT HAVE A POINT DO YOU?

Yeah. I'm sure the head of BofA is just making this all up. :rolleyes:



I didn't set up the false dichotomy, you are.


I don't think you even know what a false dichotomy is! Once again Bush didn't have the opportunity to take over GM or Chrysler! They weren't coming hat in hand for money in 2008. The banks were. And they got it. The evidence shows that the banks were being pressured before they received any money. And there's the 2008 Bush stimulus package increasing Fannie and Freddie's loan limits that I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.



I'm not saying that what Bush did was good. I'm saying what Obama is doing
is worse.


There's no difference between bailing out banks and bailing out car companies. And if you read your Bible you know "The borrower is servant to the lender". The bailouts were wrong period. You trying to differentiate them is not conservative. It's just hypocritical. The government has no right to take taxpayer money and give it to private industries. Adding "strings" to it (which Bush actually did whether you wish to admit it or not) does not somehow make it "better". If someone is going to steal money from me and give it to someone else I actually WANT strings attached! I don't want people receiving social welfare to be able to spend the money however they well please and I don't want people getting CORPORATE WELFARE to be able to spend the money however they well please! The only real answer is DON'T GIVE WELFARE TO ANYBODY! On balance Bush and Obama have been just as bad. Some ways Bush has been worse. (His administration saying torturing children is ok is a prime example).

Regards,

John M. Drake

[erowe1]

Prove me wrong with a link where the Bush Adminstration took over the actual management of the banks. Not simply giving them $. That's the very important distinction I'm making.

No it isn't.

[JamesButabi]

I always hoped the Ron Paul Revolution would embrace the Free State Project. The Ron Paul Revolution is too decentralized and sporadic to form a top down organization to control it effectively. The Free State Project totally coincides with this setup as it doesn't endorse positions, sides, parties, etc. The only aim is to get people with extremely limited government (or no government) principles to the same geographic area and let the market decide what happens.

I think maybe its time we concentrate our efforts on something like this. Would anybody be interested in forming up a group that discusses relevance and ideas surrounding this?

[parocks]

No it isn't.

Well, that's the distinction I'm making. You don't think it's a very important distinction, and that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion.

It is however, a clear and real distinction - the differences between the two different things have consequences. If Obama merely gave $ to the auto companies, without operational control, the auto companies wouldn't have yanked the well performing dealerships owned by Republican donors from those Republican donors.

I'm not saying one is bad and one is good. But when you have political appointees actually running companies (like today with Obama and GM) you have so many potential terrible terrible consequences that you might not have thought through. (But Team Obama certainly has). Oh, like fire all registered Republicans (not saying that has happened).

[HOLLYWOOD]

Tea Party Nation...


Their Website cannot even take the time out to celebrate the Opposition to The King and Crown and their Monopoly/Taxes.

Today is December 16th, 1773 anniversary... Glad to See Rand Paul and RonPaul.com acknowledges this historic date. Where's the TEA PARTIES? Campaign for Liberty? TEA PARTY EXPRESS?

The Very Day to organize and unite against government fiscal tyranny to the revolution of our independence... the day is MIA tot he very entities USING this EVENT.

[parocks]

Here's my point, yet again.

Bush's people DID NOT fire Lewis.

Obama's people DID take over GM and Chrysler.

You have trouble understanding the difference between
DID and DID NOT.

If Bush or Paulsen said "I'm firing Ken Lewis", then the situations would be similiar enough.

But that DIDN'T HAPPEN.

And my core point is again.

Obama is President now. We all agree that what he is trying to do is bad for Liberty, bad for America. Job #1 is STOP OBAMA.

You are not going to convince me that Bush is just as bad as Obama. I am not going to convince you that Obama is worse than Bush. I think we should both understand that by now.

I understand your position - which is Bush did many bad things.
You should understand my position - Obama is worse, and we all need to rally together to STOP OBAMA and save our freedom.

We don't agree with each other. We won't agree with each other. I think we can just say we should agree to disagree.



:rolleyes: Were GM and Chrysler facing bankruptcy in 2008? No? THEN YOU REALLY DO NOT HAVE A POINT DO YOU?

Yeah. I'm sure the head of BofA is just making this all up. :rolleyes:



I don't think you even know what a false dichotomy is! Once again Bush didn't have the opportunity to take over GM or Chrysler! They weren't coming hat in hand for money in 2008. The banks were. And they got it. The evidence shows that the banks were being pressured before they received any money. And there's the 2008 Bush stimulus package increasing Fannie and Freddie's loan limits that I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.



There's no difference between bailing out banks and bailing out car companies. And if you read your Bible you know "The borrower is servant to the lender". The bailouts were wrong period. You trying to differentiate them is not conservative. It's just hypocritical. The government has no right to take taxpayer money and give it to private industries. Adding "strings" to it (which Bush actually did whether you wish to admit it or not) does not somehow make it "better". If someone is going to steal money from me and give it to someone else I actually WANT strings attached! I don't want people receiving social welfare to be able to spend the money however they well please and I don't want people getting CORPORATE WELFARE to be able to spend the money however they well please! The only real answer is DON'T GIVE WELFARE TO ANYBODY! On balance Bush and Obama have been just as bad. Some ways Bush has been worse. (His administration saying torturing children is ok is a prime example).

Regards,

John M. Drake

[parocks]

Tea Party Nation...


Their Website cannot even take the time out to celebrate the Opposition to The King and Crown and their Monopoly/Taxes.

Today is December 16th, 1773 anniversary... Glad to See Rand Paul and RonPaul.com acknowledges this historic date. Where's the TEA PARTIES? Campaign for Liberty? TEA PARTY EXPRESS?

The Very Day to organize and unite against government fiscal tyranny to the revolution of our independence... the day is MIA tot he very entities USING this EVENT.


Good point.

[jmdrake]

Here's my point, yet again.

You don't have one. You never did.



Bush's people DID NOT fire Lewis.


He didn't have to. Lewis got in line.



Obama's people DID take over GM and Chrysler.


And Bush took over the banks. The TARP was a take over. It came with restrictions. Further if it didn't come with restrictions that's even worse. This is corporatism which = fascism.



You have trouble understanding the difference between
DID and DID NOT.


You have trouble understanding the term LACK OF OPPORTUNITY! Clinton didn't pass the Patriot Act either because he lacked the opportunity. Clinton didn't do ANY bailouts because he didn't have the opportunity. Using your twisted logic Clinton must be better than Bush.



If Bush or Paulsen said "I'm firing Ken Lewis", then the situations would be similiar enough.


Ah. So a crime only counts if the criminal admits it. :rolleyes: Besides the bailout itself is a crime. If you think stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to private banks is ok then you are in the wrong movement.




But that DIDN'T HAPPEN.


Only because Lewis backed down and went ahead with a risky venture that didn't make sense. What Paulsen and Bernake did is actually worse than the auto takeover! In that case you had companies that were going out of business anyway coming to the govenment for help. Obama could have let them simply go into bankruptcy, and frankly that's what I would have preferred. But he didn't. In the case of Bank of America you had a healthy bank that was pressured into making a risky decision by the government which later required it to be bailed out by the government! That's 100 times worse than what Obama did! Think of all of the people with money invested in BofA who's livelyhoods were put at risk by the criminal Bush administration!



And my core point is again.


Your core point is clear. Defend Bush and Palin at all costs.



Obama is President now. We all agree that what he is trying to do is bad for Liberty, bad for America. Job #1 is STOP OBAMA.


Job #1 is defending the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. You do not help that job by making transparently hypocritical excuses for all things Bush. I talk to current and former Obama supporters all of the time. Many are starting to see that Ron Paul is right. Some ask "Why are republicans only against bailouts now that Obama is president"? I can proudly say that the republicans I support were just as against the Bush bailouts as the are the Obama bailouts. Being hypocrites wins us nothing.



You are not going to convince me that Bush is just as bad as Obama. I am not going to convince you that Obama is worse than Bush. I think we should both understand that by now.

I understand your position - which is Bush did many bad things.
You should understand my position - Obama is worse, and we all need to rally together to STOP OBAMA and save our freedom.


I understand your position. I just disagree with it. On agregate they are just as bad. Again nobody in the Obama adminstration has said that the president has the right to torture children. And we don't stop Obama by giving Bush a pass on doing things that were as bad or worse. We need to be about principle. If we don't stand on principle then we are not better than the left wing hypocrites who were only against Bush's wars but are ok with Obama getting a "peace prize".



We don't agree with each other. We won't agree with each other. I think we can just say we should agree to disagree.

On that much I agree.

[jmdrake]

Well, that's the distinction I'm making. You don't think it's a very important distinction, and that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion.

It is however, a clear and real distinction - the differences between the two different things have consequences. If Obama merely gave $ to the auto companies, without operational control, the auto companies wouldn't have yanked the well performing dealerships owned by Republican donors from those Republican donors.

I'm not saying one is bad and one is good. But when you have political appointees actually running companies (like today with Obama and GM) you have so many potential terrible terrible consequences that you might not have thought through. (But Team Obama certainly has). Oh, like fire all registered Republicans (not saying that has happened).

Let's see. There's about as much proof of that as there is that Paulson and Bernake threatened the CEO of BofA. Less actually. Some dealers simply have claimed they've been targetted, but nobody has actually made any direct allegation. Further many big time GOP dealers are still in business. Case in point:

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/11/is-beaman-automotive-of-nashville.html

[The Deacon]

"Country club" tea parties???

[dannno]

Maybe we should hold a real tea party outside. Bring your RON PAUL 2012 signs.

Win.

[parocks]

Meet Brian Deese - Obama's DeFacto General Motors COO (http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/meet-brian-deese-obamas-defacto-general-motors-coo)


One thing the Bush team did not do was force management changes at GM or Chrysler. Bush officials did not think highly of GM Chairman Rick Wagoner, but saw ousting him as stepping too far into the powers held by a public company's board of directors.
(http://www.freep.com/article/20091216/SPECIAL04/912160355/1318/Rattner-on-GM-Chrysler-turnaround-plans-They-were-delusional)

That's the difference between Bush and Obama on the car cos.

On "Only Republican Dealerships Closed" - it isn't cut and dried. What has been said is that of 789 Dealerships that were closed, 788 only contributed to Republicans. I'm not going to jump up and down and say "that's an undeniable fact."

Here's the story as I remember it. True? Who knows? (http://www.thewoodlandsteaparty.com/2009/10/26/can-you-hear-us-now-only-republican-dealerships-closed-obama-supporter-grows-wealthier/)


Google search results for Obama Republican Dealerships
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Obama+republican+dealerships&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Republicans say one thing about this, Democrats say something different. There's no smoking gun on this one.




Let's see. There's about as much proof of that as there is that Paulson and Bernake threatened the CEO of BofA. Less actually. Some dealers simply have claimed they've been targetted, but nobody has actually made any direct allegation. Further many big time GOP dealers are still in business. Case in point:

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/11/is-beaman-automotive-of-nashville.html

[jmdrake]

Meet Brian Deese - Obama's DeFacto General Motors COO (http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/meet-brian-deese-obamas-defacto-general-motors-coo)


One thing the Bush team did not do was force management changes at GM or Chrysler. Bush officials did not think highly of GM Chairman Rick Wagoner, but saw ousting him as stepping too far into the powers held by a public company's board of directors.
(http://www.freep.com/article/20091216/SPECIAL04/912160355/1318/Rattner-on-GM-Chrysler-turnaround-plans-They-were-delusional)

That's the difference between Bush and Obama on the car cos.


The difference is that GM still had other options on the table then. It didn't matter if Bush liked the CEO or not. Your problem is that you don't recognize who the real enemy is. Ron Paul does. That's why he's taking on Bernanke now. Obama is just a puppet as was Bush.



On "Only Republican Dealerships Closed" - it isn't cut and dried. What has been said is that of 789 Dealerships that were closed, 788 only contributed to Republicans. I'm not going to jump up and down and say "that's an undeniable fact."

Here's the story as I remember it. True? Who knows? (http://www.thewoodlandsteaparty.com/2009/10/26/can-you-hear-us-now-only-republican-dealerships-closed-obama-supporter-grows-wealthier/)


Fine. I hope someone files a lawsuit. I hope if it's proven someone goes to prison. I hope Bernake and Paulson also go to prison. I don't make excuses for corruption just because it comes from one party or the other.

[Matt Collins]

"Country club" tea parties???
http://www.thirdwayblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/teapartay.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-XBWNfTbTjc/ShWIMTxIQ6I/AAAAAAAAAUw/ipQpULVEJzY/s320/Preppy.jpg
http://www.ivy-style.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/slide5.jpg
http://www.lifeinfozone.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/english-tea-party.jpg

[Matt Collins]

And let's not forget the ever popular sweater vest (no offense to my friends here - you know who you are!!!) :D:p;)






http://www.mensredtag.com/assets/Image/Product/detailsbig/SW276.jpg

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/sweater%20vest.jpg
http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_caroline/032308-sweater-vest-tommy.JPG

[parocks]

You don't have one. You never did.

Oh, you can't read more than one sentence at a time, I'll repeat

Bush's people DID NOT fire Lewis.



He didn't have to. Lewis got in line.


And that makes me wrong how exactly? He didn't fire Lewis. Period.
It didn't happen. You can pretend that it's the same, but it's not.




And Bush took over the banks. The TARP was a take over. It came with restrictions. Further if it didn't come with restrictions that's even worse. This is corporatism which = fascism.


I'm still looking for the link from you that shows the Bush admin actually running these companies. You think the Lewis link does it, but it doesn't.



You have trouble understanding the term LACK OF OPPORTUNITY! Clinton didn't pass the Patriot Act either because he lacked the opportunity. Clinton didn't do ANY bailouts because he didn't have the opportunity. Using your twisted logic Clinton must be better than Bush.


Well, you just brought up the Clinton issue regarding Lack of Opportunity, so I didn't address it before. I wasn't comparing Bush to Clinton. So, no comment I guess. Don't want to get sidetracked. This conversation is not about any and all things, or "name all things you like or dislike about all Presidents"




Ah. So a crime only counts if the criminal admits it. :rolleyes: Besides the bailout itself is a crime. If you think stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to private banks is ok then you are in the wrong movement.


Well, as you're still having trouble grasping, Ken Lewis wasn't fired, so it's a moot point. I guess the analogy would be a crime only counts if it actually took place.




Only because Lewis backed down and went ahead with a risky venture that didn't make sense. What Paulsen and Bernake did is actually worse than the auto takeover! In that case you had companies that were going out of business anyway coming to the govenment for help. Obama could have let them simply go into bankruptcy, and frankly that's what I would have preferred. But he didn't. In the case of Bank of America you had a healthy bank that was pressured into making a risky decision by the government which later required it to be bailed out by the government! That's 100 times worse than what Obama did! Think of all of the people with money invested in BofA who's livelyhoods were put at risk by the criminal Bush administration!


You're simply talking about things you don't like. The government should not be running companies. Bailing them out then running them vs just bailing them out.
Or getting one bank to buy another bank. I think it's worse that the government is actually now in the auto business. You disagree.



Your core point is clear. Defend Bush and Palin at all costs.


I'm not sure how I'm defending Bush or even Palin. I'm pointing out that Obama is worse than Bush. I'm not saying what Bush did was good. You really should grasp that distinction, because you keep saying the same stuff over and over.
I have noted that she's important, perhaps the most important with Job #1 STOP OBAMA.




Job #1 is defending the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. You do not help that job by making transparently hypocritical excuses for all things Bush. I talk to current and former Obama supporters all of the time. Many are starting to see that Ron Paul is right. Some ask "Why are republicans only against bailouts now that Obama is president"? I can proudly say that the republicans I support were just as against the Bush bailouts as the are the Obama bailouts. Being hypocrites wins us nothing.


What excuses am I making for Bush. I'm simply stating that what Obama is doing is worse. I haven't made an excuse for Bush. Bailout plus the government running the company is worse than just bailout. That's my opinion. You have a different one. What excuse for Bush did I make?

The difference between the Bush bailouts and the Obama bailouts is that with the Obama bailouts, at least in the GM / Chrysler case, the Government is ultimately running the business. That's a real difference, especially to those who are against Socialism.



I understand your position. I just disagree with it. On agregate they are just as bad. Again nobody in the Obama adminstration has said that the president has the right to torture children. And we don't stop Obama by giving Bush a pass on doing things that were as bad or worse. We need to be about principle. If we don't stand on principle then we are not better than the left wing hypocrites who were only against Bush's wars but are ok with Obama getting a "peace prize".


Stopping Obama is independent of Bush. But I think I might see a little bit where you're coming from. Many of Ron Paul's supporters have some belief that endless arguing with someone is going to make a difference, that it might change their opinion. I disagree with that overall strategy, especially as it was conducted in 2008. You think, somewhere in the front or back of your mind, that the merits of Bush have some relevance in an argument about the merits of Obama, that somehow you could win the hearts and minds of those who already against Bush by showing that you are against both and they should be too. If you're going to look at it that way, pragmatically, it's a strategy that could be effective in certain instances. You want a result from the person you're arguing with along the lines of "well, at least he's consistent, he doesn't like Obama or Bush. I don't like Bush, perhaps I will consider not liking Obama because this principled person likes neither." Ok, I kinda get that. You're using your dislike of both to swing people against Obama. Fair enough. But you're not arguing with an Obama supporter at this point, and this paralleling of Bush and Obama just makes it look like you don't see the problem with the government actively managing auto companies.



On that much I agree.

[parocks]

The difference is that GM still had other options on the table then. It didn't matter if Bush liked the CEO or not. Your problem is that you don't recognize who the real enemy is. Ron Paul does. That's why he's taking on Bernanke now. Obama is just a puppet as was Bush.

You don't know what my opinions are on such issues as "real enemy". I'll say that I've known about Ron Paul for years, not since 1988, but maybe 10 years. And one of my conspiracy theory expert (hint) buddies told me he was the only good politician out there. I'm not going to say who I think the "real enemy" is, because I don't have the proof, neither do you I suspect. I wouldn't be surprised if we agreed on who many of the bad guys are.

My political analysis which starts and stops with Job #1 STOP OBAMA is based on the time sensitive nature of these battles and the closeness of these battles. These things that Obama wants to do are bad. We should stop them now. Clinton - especially from 1995-2000 - didn't do much of anything, at least not anything that would get the Republicans fired up enough to stop him. Job #1 STOP OBAMA. Accomplish this. It's important to do so. Then what? Well, Job #2, which could be a number of things. I'd argue that it would be practical to follow the basic, get rid of the RINOs, elect Republicans, and get started at repealing legislation.

It looks like it's setting up like 1994 - Clinton tries to pass Health Care that the people do not want, Republicans kick Democrat ass in November 1994, and then 2 years of gridlock without any major liberal legislation from Clinton. A lot of the action post 11/94 has something or other to do with the Contract with America. The Government shuts down for a little while, the media blames Gingrich, The Clinton Health Care plan that the people do not want is forgotten fairly quickly. In 1996 the economy does not suck, and Clinton is reelected. So Obama either wins or loses in 2012.

Republicans will likely have a majority in the House at least by 11/12. There will be little danger of Obama pushing crazy liberal legislation that must be stopped at that time. So, the Conservative Republican agenda (we can assume - for the sake of this argument - that the Conservative Republicans have been listening to Ron Paul) can be slowly implemented.

The point: there is urgency now because Obama and the D's are trying to push some seriously crazy leftist stuff that we don't want. But, once we STOP OBAMA, we can work on passing stuff we like (repealing stuff we don't) and not have to worry about Obama and the Democrats.




Fine. I hope someone files a lawsuit. I hope if it's proven someone goes to prison. I hope Bernake and Paulson also go to prison. I don't make excuses for corruption just because it comes from one party or the other.

[LittleLightShining]

And let's not forget the ever popular sweater vest (no offense to my friends here - you know who you are!!!) :D:p;)






http://www.mensredtag.com/assets/Image/Product/detailsbig/SW276.jpg

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/sweater%20vest.jpg
http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_caroline/032308-sweater-vest-tommy.JPG

Bwahahaha! I ONLY see those at GOP meetings. In fact I saw a couple last night.

[erowe1]

Do you support Obama's health care plan? It's not very Liberty friendly, you know.
If it passes, there's a good chance that people will be jailed for not buying health insurance. Who do you think has been voting for this bill and who has been voting against it? Republicans, who you think are indistinguishable from Democrats, are voting against it. Democrats are voting for it.

This is one of the reasons that it's a good thing McCain lost the election. If he had won, then most of those Republicans, along with a good number of Democrats, would have supported his version of health insurance reform, and it would have already passed by now.

The reason so many of those liberal Republicans oppose Obamacare is not because they want a free market, it's because they're playing the role of the minority party attacking the schemes of the majority party according to the script that has them postured to the right of the Dems. But I don't think we should support any of these Republicans who will merely switch places with those Dems they're attacking now and champion their own versions of government intervention once they retake the majority like most of them did in 1994, and we have to assume that that's all of them except the ones who prove otherwise.

[Ethek]

This is one of the reasons that it's a good thing McCain lost the election. If he had won, then most of those Republicans, along with a good number of Democrats, would have supported his version of health insurance reform, and it would have already passed by now.

The reason so many of those liberal Republicans oppose Obamacare is not because they want a free market, it's because they're playing the role of the minority party attacking the schemes of the majority party according to the script that has them postured to the right of the Dems. But I don't think we should support any of these Republicans who will merely switch places with those Dems they're attacking now and champion their own versions of government intervention once they retake the majority like most of them did in 1994, and we have to assume that that's all of them except the ones who prove otherwise.

very true... how to do that. Perhaps a standards organization to accredit Tea Party groups. I've been thinking about it for my site and what Id like to see done. Anyone have an opinion on an ISO 9000 type process for groups that promote liberty? I am thinking about a standard of openess and and a set of principles like G Edward Griffin talked about. I say forget Glen Beck, this needs a charter and a committe of 'Paultards'

[parocks]

This is one of the reasons that it's a good thing McCain lost the election. If he had won, then most of those Republicans, along with a good number of Democrats, would have supported his version of health insurance reform, and it would have already passed by now.

The reason so many of those liberal Republicans oppose Obamacare is not because they want a free market, it's because they're playing the role of the minority party attacking the schemes of the majority party according to the script that has them postured to the right of the Dems. But I don't think we should support any of these Republicans who will merely switch places with those Dems they're attacking now and champion their own versions of government intervention once they retake the majority like most of them did in 1994, and we have to assume that that's all of them except the ones who prove otherwise.

I think you're saying something similar to "get rid of the RINOs." I agree with getting rid of the RINOs.

[parocks]

Well, it's not too uncommon for groups to send questionaires to candidates.

One thing that some group, Campaign For Liberty perhaps, could do is send a questionnaire to candidates for office. Now's a good time for that.

I'd like to know

Would you rather pass or repeal laws?
If pass, what would you like to pass?
If repeal, what would you like to repeal?

Ask any number of other questions, but that's my suggestion.

Then, Campaign For Liberty can put up the answers on the internet for us all to see.

I kinda like the idea that it's a literal peace of paper, a form that is filled out by the candidate. We can look at the pdf.




very true... how to do that. Perhaps a standards organization to accredit Tea Party groups. I've been thinking about it for my site and what Id like to see done. Anyone have an opinion on an ISO 9000 type process for groups that promote liberty? I am thinking about a standard of openess and and a set of principles like G Edward Griffin talked about. I say forget Glen Beck, this needs a charter and a committe of 'Paultards'

[Matt Collins]

They have released a schedule to the National Tea Party Convention:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/01/04/nashvilles-national-tea-party-convention-reveals-itinerary/

[Matt Collins]

They have released a schedule for the weekend itinerary of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/01/04/nashvilles-national-tea-party-convention-reveals-itinerary/ (http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/01/04/nashvilles-national-tea-party-convention-reveals-itinerary/)

[jmdrake]

What's funny is that the much bigger Southern Republican Leadership conference is only $190. VIP only cost $500. And all of the Palin groupies can see her speak there too. Plus there's something for the Huckabots.

http://www.srlc2010.com/

[Matt Collins]

What's funny is that the much bigger Southern Republican Leadership conference is only $190. VIP only cost $500. And all of the Palin groupies can see her speak there too. Plus there's something for the Huckabots.

http://www.srlc2010.com/ (http://www.srlc2010.com/)
Here is the thread on it:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=221670

Interestingly enough Ron wasn't invited. I wonder why :confused: :rolleyes: