Bloomberg - Neocons Overtake Tea Party

[StilesBC]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-12/palin-joins-armey-as-lifelong-republicans-boost-tea-party-hostile-takeover.html

I admit to not paying much attention to Tea Party politics in a few months, but WTF is this? Armey and Palin? Are you freaking kidding me?

I would rather make alliances with flaming socialists than neoconservatives. Goodbye Tea Party. This is not something I can morally propose as a solution for anything.

[dannno]

Eh, Palin endorsed Rand and that helped him win the primary. Not that she's a good politician, but if they can get some of our people into office...

But ya, the whole tea-o-con movement is a bit disconcerting.

[wizardwatson]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-12/palin-joins-armey-as-lifelong-republicans-boost-tea-party-hostile-takeover.html

I admit to not paying much attention to Tea Party politics in a few months, but WTF is this? Armey and Palin? Are you freaking kidding me?

I would rather make alliances with flaming socialists than neoconservatives. Goodbye Tea Party. This is not something I can morally propose as a solution for anything.

This is old news really. CFL is dead. Tea Party is co-opted. Ron Paul Revolution is a memory.

YAL(?) I think is still doing ok, but this "movement" if we can still call it that has gone more underground than it already was. It's back in cocoon mode.

[low preference guy]

clueless poster.

Armey is helping Rand and apologized for voting for the Iraq war.

[wizardwatson]

clueless poster.

Armey is helping Rand and apologized for voting for the Iraq war.

We're all clueless about something.

I think Rand even associating with this people only helps them and hurts us. Being "accepted" by the GOP isn't changing the GOP, they aren't "seeing the light", they're just buying us out.

But that's just what I think.

I get that a lot of people see their moves as "recognition" of us, I see it as getting us dirty so we're no longer a real political threat.

[cindy25]

Armey is no neo-con; Palin might be but she also might be the first establishment Rep to come out against the war

[StilesBC]

clueless poster.

Armey is helping Rand and apologized for voting for the Iraq war.

If you accept an apology from a politician and then trust him/her again, you deserve what you're about to get.


Eh, Palin endorsed Rand and that helped him win the primary. Not that she's a good politician, but if they can get some of our people into office...

When someone "gets" you somewhere in politics they own you. Rand is useless in the Senate if he owes favours to neocons.

[YumYum]

This is old news really. CFL is dead. Tea Party is co-opted. Ron Paul Revolution is a memory.

YAL(?) I think is still doing ok, but this "movement" if we can still call it that has gone more underground than it already was. It's back in cocoon mode.

No, C4L is doing well in some areas at the grassroots level in getting local officials elected.

I don't think Ron Paul supporters could ever gain control of the Federal government because the special interest groups that control our country would never allow them to be in charge.

Winning by mixing in with neocons and then thinking that you have scored a victory is ludicrous. If you mix shit with ice cream you have shit, not ice cream. The neocons will always have their way because the bankers will always support them or the Democrats over Ron Paul supporters.

[IPSecure]

Armey helped setup the department of homeland security...

Palin - the gop establishment vp nominee...

The tea party has been assimilated...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Lol at those who support Armey, yet scorn Barr. You either scorn both, or like both. It is illogical to support one and not the other because they are essentially the same rats. Neither are liberty friendly. I agree with IPSecure.

[wizardwatson]

No, C4L is doing well in some areas at the grassroots level in getting local officials elected.

I don't think Ron Paul supporters could ever gain control of the Federal government because the special interest groups that control our country would never allow them to be in charge.

Winning by mixing in with neocons and then thinking that you have scored a victory is ludicrous. If you mix shit with ice cream you have shit, not ice cream. The neocons will always have their way because the bankers will always support them or the Democrats over Ron Paul supporters.

Well, you may well be right. I get that C4L is supposed to be local but I don't think my state coordinator has posted more than like 3 things this year, and the last meeting that was scheduled in my area was over a year ago. Not blaming anyone, I'm as much at fault as the next guy, just feels dead.

I agree with everything else you've said, and would add this:

Why don't any of these fucking fuckers associate with Ron Paul? His record and service to this country are spotless. Why cozy up to Rand and not Ron?

I'll tell you why cuz these spineless phonies fucking eyes would melt if they looked directly at him, like Nazi's staring at the ark of the covenant. Until every politician in Washington writes an apology letter to RP for completely ignoring him, they can all suck it... I'm not buying their bullshit.

[YumYum]

Well, you may well be right. I get that C4L is supposed to be local but I don't think my state coordinator has posted more than like 3 things this year, and the last meeting that was scheduled in my area was over a year ago. Not blaming anyone, I'm as much at fault as the next guy, just feels dead.

I agree with everything else you've said, and would add this:

Why don't any of these fucking fuckers associate with Ron Paul? His record and service to this country are spotless. Why cozy up to Rand and not Ron?

I'll tell you why cuz these spineless phonies fucking eyes would melt if they looked directly at him, like Nazi's staring at the ark of the covenant. Until every politician in Washington writes an apology letter to RP for completely ignoring him, they can all suck it... I'm not buying their bullshit.

Excellent question! Who is Rand? He has no record, and yet Palin jumps in and supports him, while admitting on the Judge's show that she doesn't agree with Ron Paul on foreign intervention and wars. Ron is solid as to where he stands on the critical issues. Ron is an enemy of the neocons, so why would the neocons endorse his son? Ron Paul supporters who keep messing with neocons are going to get burned. The neocons aren't stupid; they know what Ron Paul supporters are doing in trying to take back the Republican Party, and I feel that many don't realize that they are playing into their hands.

I hope I am wrong.

[wizardwatson]

Excellent question! Who is Rand? He has no record, and yet Palin jumps in and supports him, while admitting on the Judge's show that she doesn't agree with Ron Paul on foreign intervention and wars. Ron is solid as to where he stands on the critical issues. Ron is an enemy of the neocons, so why would the neocons endorse his son? Ron Paul supporters who keep messing with neocons are going to get burned. The neocons aren't stupid; they know what Ron Paul supporters are doing in trying to take back the Republican Party, and I feel that many don't realize that they are playing into their hands.

I hope I am wrong.

Well, I don't think you are wrong. I spent years in campaigns, these people are fucking ninjas of deception and we're in their domain.

My only hope is that there is some kind of re-awakening within the movement that we need to find a different vehicle than electoral politics, but its a hope only at the moment.

We have a lot of brains and creative people. I'm honestly not sure what the problem is. Confidence maybe? Amplified bystander effect on the internet? Stockholm syndrome? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, I don't think you are wrong. I spent years in campaigns, these people are fucking ninjas of deception and we're in their domain.

My only hope is that there is some kind of re-awakening within the movement that we need to find a different vehicle than electoral politics, but its a hope only at the moment.

We have a lot of brains and creative people. I'm honestly not sure what the problem is. Confidence maybe? Amplified bystander effect on the internet? Stockholm syndrome? Your guess is as good as mine.

You should check out the Free State Project. :D

[JK/SEA]

Well, let it not be said we did nothing. The only way these asswipes are gonna wake up is when its too late. I expect to find these fuckers laying along side roads starving to death while i walk by with my AK and glock on a recon, and the only thing i'll give'em is a tea bag shoved in their mouths.

[amy31416]

I really don't see any reason (aside from apathy), that we couldn't start a project to either take the tea party back or form a separate group. It could also help alleviate apathy, if done right.

I must admit that I'd be pretty freaking motivated to humiliate the neocons by turning things around on them.

We have this forum, C4L, DailyPaul and a few other sites that I'm forgetting to mention, I'm sure.

Call it "Operation Elimination" or something (lame, I know). If we coordinated, we could do it--I wouldn't go to a tea party now because of the neocon assholes (speakers, ignorant republicans, etc), unless there were a motivating factor--like shoving some shit down their throats and making their manipulations much more difficult. We could show them a thing or two...

And gloat. I generally don't gloat, but I'd make an exception for neocons...

Edit: If we were to undertake such a project, it should start pretty soon. Time's a-wastin'.

[YumYum]

Well, I don't think you are wrong. I spent years in campaigns, these people are fucking ninjas of deception and we're in their domain.

My only hope is that there is some kind of re-awakening within the movement that we need to find a different vehicle than electoral politics, but its a hope only at the moment.

We have a lot of brains and creative people. I'm honestly not sure what the problem is. Confidence maybe? Amplified bystander effect on the internet? Stockholm syndrome? Your guess is as good as mine.

I came up with an idea and shared it in chat.

I believe that the current financial mess is at a point of no return. I'm not a "doomsdayer", but after learning everything on this forum about our economic situation, I believe we are headed for total, complete collapse.

How many on this forum really believe that? Or do they just say that we are "doomed" because they like to complain?

I feel that spending money and lots of energy in trying to put decent candidates into office at this late point in the game is not going to change anything. We are fighting an uphill battle. By the time we get Liberty candidates into office to where they have some control, they will be blamed for the final collapse. That is the way politics works.

So, what should we do? Well, torchbearer has the right idea. We should help this system to collapse by getting all the food-stamps, medicaid, welfare and government aid that we can get.

Another thing we can do, is instead of trying to vote-in decent people who are principled candidates, we should support and vote-in the most vile piece of trash that will guarantee the collapse of our government; a neocon or Democrat that has a real chance of winning. The media would ask us: "Why are you all supporting this person when they are for everything you are against?" Good question.

Our reply would be: "Because this person's policies will help further the collapse of our government, and when everything collapses, we can start over with an honest, small government, which is what our founding fathers intended." The press would eat this up. Ron Paul supporters would be in the news every night, and every neocon and Democrat would shit their pants when they find out that we are supporting them.

Its a great ploy, and it would be fun. Otherwise, I don't understand why this movement is intermingling and rubbing shoulders with neocons, as if they are now our "buds".

We are revolutionaries and activists, just like Stalin and his gang. He had fewer "comrades" working with him than Ron Paul does. We are not politicians. That is why we keep losing.

Old Ducker had a name for this effort: The "Vote For Trash" Political Action Committee. :)

[Old Ducker]

I came up with an idea and shared it in chat.

I believe that the current financial mess is at a point of no return. I'm not a "doomsdayer", but after learning everything on this forum about our economic situation, I believe we are headed for total, complete collapse.

How many on this forum really believe that? Or do they just say that we are "doomed" because they like to complain?

I feel that spending money and lots of energy in trying to put decent candidates into office at this late point in the game is not going to change anything. We are fighting an uphill battle. By the time we get Liberty candidates into office to where they have some control, they will be blamed for the final collapse. That is the way politics works.

So, what should we do? Well, torchbearer has the right idea. We should help this system to collapse by getting all the food-stamps, medicaid, welfare and government aid that we can get.

Another thing we can do, is instead of trying vote in decent people who are principled candidates, we should support and vote-in the most vile piece of trash that will guarantee the collapse of our government; a neocon or Democrat that has a real chance of winning. The media would ask us: "Why are you all supporting this person when the are for everything you are against?" Good question.

Our reply would be: "Because this person's policies will help further the collapse of our government, and when everything collapses, we can start over with an honest, small government, which is what our founding fathers intended." The press would eat this up. Ron Paul supporters would be in the news every night, and every neocon and Democrat would shit their pants when they find out that we are supporting them.

Its a great ploy, and it would be fun. Otherwise, I don't understand why this movement is intermingling and rubbing shoulders with neocons, as if they are now our "buds".

We are revolutionaries and activists, just like Stalin and his gang. He had fewer "comrades" working with him than Ron Paul does. We are not politicians. That is why we keep losing.

Old Ducker had a name for this effort: The "Vote For Trash" Political Action Committee. :)

Just to make it clear, the Vote for Trash PAC would spend all the money on negative and ironic advertising. None of it's funds would go to candidates.

[00_Pete]

Dumbass article full of propaganda. Same old "there are powerful forces behind tea party" and "neocon takeover" and all that crap. More tea party demonizing and more dividing of the tea party.

And Palin is not a neocon...she is a Dominionist, get your facts right. She beleives the exact same things Alex Jones does (and then some...because not even Alex knows how far this whole thing goes) and she represents the ONLY force on the Planet capable of standing up to the NWO, the Dominionist/Third Wave movement that has been infiltrating the military for over 2 decades. Ask Mikey Weinstein of the "Military Religious Freedom Foundation" (aka "Anti-Dominionist Foundation Camouflaged In Secular Crap")

[YumYum]

Dumbass article full of propaganda. Same old "there are powerful forces behind tea party" and "neocon takeover" and all that crap. More tea party demonizing and more dividing of the tea party.

And Palin is not a neocon...she is a Dominionist, get your facts right. She beleives the exact same things Alex Jones does (and then some...because not even Alex knows how far this whole thing goes) and she represents the ONLY force on the Planet capable of standing up to the NWO, the Dominionist/Third Wave movement that has been infiltrating the military for over 2 decades. Ask Mikey Weinstein of the "Military Religious Freedom Foundation" (aka "Anti-Dominionist Foundation Camouflaged In Secular Crap")

: "Dominionism is therefore a tendency among Protestant Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists that encourages them to not only be active political participants in civic society, but also seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God."

That is some spooky stuff. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/what-is-dominionism-palin_b_124037.html

Palin loves war. She was advised by the biggest neocon of all, Bill Kristol. She may be a dominionist, but she is also a neocon; at least where foreign policy is concerned.

She is also a quitter.

[low preference guy]

She is also a quitter.

And she is hot, too.

[YumYum]

And she is hot, too.

You think so? She was ugly in High School. She must of had plastic surgery.

[00_Pete]

: "Dominionism is therefore a tendency among Protestant Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists that encourages them to not only be active political participants in civic society, but also seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God."

That is some spooky stuff. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/what-is-dominionism-palin_b_124037.html

Palin loves war. She was advised by the biggest neocon of all, Bill Kristol. She may be a dominionist, but she is also a neocon; at least where foreign policy is concerned.

She is also a quitter.

Using HuPo to learn something about Palin or anything religious is not a very wise thing to do no? And as far as im concerned, if HuPo and limo-liberal Jackeline Kennedy wannabe -Arianna Huffington- are obsessed with the Dominionists its because they are on the right track...

But Dominionists have as much right to occupy positions of power as you do no? If you can find irrefutable evidence that they seek to establish some kind of Theocratic/Totalitarian rule and push out non-dominionists from positions of power please show it to me. No "analysis" from leftwing "experts" please, show me irrefutable evidence. Besides, if you realised that what this people have in store for us is "Gulag Archipelago" x10 you wouldnt mind one bit if they (dominionists) were indeed totalitarian.

Bill Kristol is a NOBODY, period, people are obsessed with him, nobody gives a rats arse about him anymore...Palin loves war as much as Rand Paul or Peter Schiff do no? Hypocrisy much? Or maybe she has a very quick way of ending the wars but she is just "playing politics"...a little bird told me that if the CIA and US Government stopped flooding Pakistan with billions of tax-dollars and engaging on drug dealing activities, the Taliban would have a hard time...this is what a bird told me i dont know if its true or not...

Quitter? you know very well why she "quitted" you are insulting her "just because", in fact it was a move that shows she has a brain after all like Pat Buchannon stated in his " What's the Mama Grizzly Up To?" article.

One of the most important people in the military Dominionist/Third Wave movement, army officer and chaplain Major James Linzey doing one of his many "evil right-wing racist christian-nutcase nazi" conspiracy lectures:

YouTube - The Federal Reserve Cartel [1/13] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKzOiwNk5Ms)

And this is exactly why "they" hate Palin and the Dominionists...and yes, Palin thinks exactly like him but she has to "play politics". Just like Ron Paul saying there was nothing strange about 911 when we all know he is bullsh*tting...

[nate895]

This is old news really. CFL is dead. Tea Party is co-opted. Ron Paul Revolution is a memory.

YAL(?) I think is still doing ok, but this "movement" if we can still call it that has gone more underground than it already was. It's back in cocoon mode.

Wow, ain't you just a bunch sunshine and roses, negative Nancy?

[WaltM]

serious (but stupid) question :

Is there any non-tea republican party?

isn't the "tea party" the media talking about just "republicans angry they lost the election"?

Sure, there's ultra conservative, paleoconservative, RP, libertarian tea partiers.
And then there's neocon, just lost the election Republicans.
But is there any Republican, that's been a Republican before 2008, that currently doesn't identify himself as "tea party"?

Isn't "tea party" in effect the new name for "republicans who lost the election"?
(because those who lost and aren't angry most likely joined a 3rd party and stopped being republican anyway)

[jmdrake]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-12/palin-joins-armey-as-lifelong-republicans-boost-tea-party-hostile-takeover.html

I admit to not paying much attention to Tea Party politics in a few months, but WTF is this? Armey and Palin? Are you freaking kidding me?

I would rather make alliances with flaming socialists than neoconservatives. Goodbye Tea Party. This is not something I can morally propose as a solution for anything.

You're just now figuring this out? From a "tea party" on July 2, 2009.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5613/photoyen.jpg

That said, Armey was being helpful back during the 2008 election.

[jmdrake]

serious (but stupid) question :

Is there any non-tea republican party?

isn't the "tea party" the media talking about just "republicans angry they lost the election"?

Sure, there's ultra conservative, paleoconservative, RP, libertarian tea partiers.
And then there's neocon, just lost the election Republicans.
But is there any Republican, that's been a Republican before 2008, that currently doesn't identify himself as "tea party"?

Isn't "tea party" in effect the new name for "republicans who lost the election"?
(because those who lost and aren't angry most likely joined a 3rd party and stopped being republican anyway)

The modern "tea party" started in 2006 when 9/11 truthers dumped copies of the 9/11 report in the Boston harbor in protest. In 2007 the RP movement came up with the idea of sending "bags of tea" to congressmen along with quotes from the constitution. After the big Nov 5 "moneybomb" (horrible date as Guy Fawkes actually was a terrorist) the movement decided to host another big moneybomb on the anniversary of the Boston Tea party and a rally in Boston. Then some folks were like "OMG! The 9/11 truthers are trying to hijack our event". But the truth was that the truther event was planned a year earlier. The truthers agreed to hold their rally at a different location than the RP rally (I think?) and anyway it didn't become a problem. So the idea of a "tea party" became associated with the Ron Paul movement. Then after getting whomped for supporter that loser John McCain, folks like Glenn Beck and some other guy who's name escapes me now hijacked the idea / term. Members of the RP movement did show up, but we mostly decided to "go along to get along" and didn't pull out the "Bush = Obama" signs that we should have. There were some bright "insurgent" moments like when Senator John Cornyn got booed at a Texas Tea Party, but there were also sickening moments (for me anyway) where Newt "I support Nancy Pelosi on climate change" Gringrich spoke at a Tea Party via a recorded message, or a Tea Party began with a prayer "And Lord help us to support Israel through whom you will fulfill prophecy and our salvation will come."

Anyway, that's a short history. It was originally very much an anti Bush / anti government movement. And the same people who were anti Bush were also anti Obama. But a lot of pro Bush folks flocked in. Some of those pro Bush people are starting to see at least that Bush's policies were dumb even if they haven't connected the dots. I saw one funny clip where Sarah Palin supporters were asked why they liked her. One said "Cause she opposed the bailout". The reporter pointed out that Palin had actually supported the Bush bailout. Some of these folks are really dumbed down.

[wizardwatson]

Wow, ain't you just a bunch sunshine and roses, negative Nancy?

You like that?

Maybe a little on the negative side, but I haven't had a cigarette in over a week. It's hard for me to polish turds as well.

[speciallyblend]

Colorado Tea Party is Run by Liberty not tea-cons. like i have said before if the tea party or the gop is run by neo-cons or tea-cons! They will only alienate themselves further! I will never vote for a wanna be! Freedom and Liberty are 2 issues a tea-con or neo-con cannot adapt to or hi-jack!!!!!

I will never settle for less! Keep It Local, Liberty Candidates 2010, Ron Paul 2012

PS seeing how the failed gop is. I suggest folks push Ending Marijuana Prohibition Issue, #1 Principle, #1 Liberty, #1 Freedom , it might not be a person's #1 issue but on Liberty,Freedom,Principle if it is not! Then i smell a biggovgop supporter or someone that needs to wake up asap!

[wizardwatson]

Colorado Tea Party is Run by Liberty not tea-cons. like i have said before if the tea party or the gop is run by neo-cons or tea-cons! They will only alienate themselves further! I will never vote for a wanna be! Freedom and Liberty are 2 issues a tea-con or neo-con cannot adapt to or hi-jack!!!!!

I will never settle for less! Keep It Local, Liberty Candidates 2010, Ron Paul 2012

PS seeing how the failed gop is. I suggest folks push Ending Marijuana Prohibition Issue, #1 Principle, #1 Liberty, #1 Freedom , it might not be a person's #1 issue but on Liberty,Freedom,Principle if it is not! Then i smell a biggovgop supporter or someone that needs to wake up asap!

We can't organize under a partially compromised label. If we have to go around telling people this is the "real" tea party but that is the "fake" tea party, we just make all of the tea party look more like wackos.

I thought we were going to have CFL rallies?

I hate to be negative (not really) but this identity issue is hurting us, and sitting back and saying, "oh, well the movement is "decentralized", that's how its always been" is just rationalization of a negative into a positive, which I think is worse than being negative and pointing stuff out.

[low preference guy]

We can't organize under a partially compromised label. If we have to go around telling people this is the "real" tea party but that is the "fake" tea party, we just make all of the tea party look more like wackos.

I thought we were going to have CFL rallies?

I hate to be negative (not really) but this identity issue is hurting us, and sitting back and saying, "oh, well the movement is "decentralized", that's how its always been" is just rationalization of a negative into a positive, which I think is worse than being negative and pointing stuff out.

someone call the waaaahmbulance!!!!

[wizardwatson]

someone call the waaaahmbulance!!!!

Say what you want, my posts aren't any more helpful, hurtful, or meaningless than yours.

[speciallyblend]

We can't organize under a partially compromised label. If we have to go around telling people this is the "real" tea party but that is the "fake" tea party, we just make all of the tea party look more like wackos.

I thought we were going to have CFL rallies?

I hate to be negative (not really) but this identity issue is hurting us, and sitting back and saying, "oh, well the movement is "decentralized", that's how its always been" is just rationalization of a negative into a positive, which I think is worse than being negative and pointing stuff out.

I am a Republican, ouch like that made it better:( anyway i hear you! When running for office you have to be a person yes republican or democrat but focus on issues locally! The plan locally is to show Kevin Cannell on Issues not that he is republican! the republican brand name might be a huge negative locally! if this is the case then the gop really is dead! We will be forced to look elsewhere!
to me the rebirth or death of the gop depends on our local Kevin Cannell and getting him elected! if Kevin Cannell wasn't running. Then the gop would have already lost before it began;) this should tell the failed gop something already;)

[YumYum]

I am a member of C4L. I want no part of the current Tea Party. The neocons hi-jacked a good thing, and Ron Paul supporters are delusional if they think that the neocons in the Tea Party are coming around in their thinking. Ron Paul supporters are being rolled over by the neocon's bulldozer.

The bankers are in charge. Its all about empire building and war.

[someperson]

We can't organize under a partially compromised label. If we have to go around telling people this is the "real" tea party but that is the "fake" tea party, we just make all of the tea party look more like wackos.
Stop looking to labels; they are a problem, not a solution. If you swap one overexposed, damaged label for another, you will have succeeded in repeating the very mistake, that critical mistake, that individuals have made for centuries.


If only more individuals would come to the realization that one of the most critical problems that individuals face in political activity isn't deciding which labeled group to identify with; rather, the problem is desiring to identify with a labeled group, in the first place.

The nameless organization of individuals based on ideas: This is what spontaneously erupted during the 2008 campaign, with millions of disparate individuals coming together around specific ideas - a message - and this kind of organization is far more powerful than any labeled group.

Once a group of individuals is labeled, it becomes targetable; this is critically important to understand. With the ability to propagandize individuals via label, the individuals in the media, and others, are able to define, and redefine as necessary, the enemies and allies of a group in order to manufacture any paradigm of their convenience. The label empowers them to define, and redefine, the ideas of the group to both "outsiders" and bandwagon "insiders" (Did you know? [LABEL] wants to attack the axis of evil). Further, it allows them to willfully distort group characteristics and traits ([LABEL] are all isolationists/radicals/you-get-the-idea-ists), in order to manipulate "public opinion." These redefinitions tend to push out the "originals" of the group, which, in turn, facilitates further redefinition.

For the media, the "Tea Party" label served well (too well) in collectivizing the majority of dissenters in this country under a single banner. If you realize what the "Tea Party" has become, please don't repeat the same mistake. Don't just seek a new label to identify with; break the cycle of label reassignment and represent yourself by your ideas and organize with others based on those ideas.

Oh, and to conclude in melodramatic fashion: Death to parties and labels. Thanks for reading :)

A damaging, yet all too common way of representing oneself (cooptable symbolism, artwork, sound bites, labels):

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7536/rightw.png

A better method of representing oneself (by specific ideas):

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4664/newideas.png

No; this is not a "movement" flag. This is an individual flag. I could use this flag for myself, perhaps. Each individual should enumerate their own specific ideas when they represent themselves.

[brandon]

This is old news really. CFL is dead. Tea Party is co-opted. Ron Paul Revolution is a memory.

YAL(?) I think is still doing ok, but this "movement" if we can still call it that has gone more underground than it already was. It's back in cocoon mode.


True words. That sums everything up pretty much.

[Slutter McGee]

Winning by mixing in with neocons and then thinking that you have scored a victory is ludicrous. If you mix shit with ice cream you have shit, not ice cream. The neocons will always have their way because the bankers will always support them or the Democrats over Ron Paul supporters.

Again, you are demonstrating the problem with using the term neo-con. Our alliance is not with neo-cons. It is with strong fiscal conservatives, many who are interventionists in the interest of security rather than spreading American exceptionalism.

This distinction is key. Because neo-cons pay lip service to fiscal issues. But the Jim Demint types are serious about it.

This should be a matter of priorities. And domestic fiscal sanity HAS to be our number one priority. Which is why the tea-party, insofar as it stays focused on this issue, is a good thing. After that, the wars should be our second priority....because fiscal sanity is a big part of that. And when it comes to this issue, the tea-party will not be our ally. Nor will it be our ally when it comes to what should be our third priority....civil liberties.

I don't mean to argue that civil liberties and the wars are not as important as domestic fiscal policy. They certainly are. Simply that the current political and economic climate presents domestic fiscal policy as the most opportune area in which to make gains for liberty.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[FrankRep]

I'm guessing that many people here don't know what a "Neocon" is.

:rolleyes:

[amy31416]

How do you have domestic fiscal sanity when we're still spending like madmen overseas? If we cut domestic expenses, all the money will almost definitely go into more adventurism overseas.

You have it backwards, Slutter, and I think you know that.

[Slutter McGee]

I'm guessing that many people here don't know what a "Neocon" is.

:rolleyes:

I keep trying to explain the difference between Bill Kristol and Jim Demint. But according to everyone here, support for the war seems to automatically equal neo-con. It really drives me nuts.

It really is gross ignorance. Somebody who believes the war is necessary for our national security might change their opinion eventually. They might pull an Ann Coulter and decided we have been there to long. They might pull a Chuck Hagel and realize that our security was not really threatened. They realize that we are nation building, and might stop wanting to do that.

A neo-con, however believes that American greatness should be spread at all costs. You can't present evidence to change their mind because their opinion is based not on evidence, but a rigid personal beliefs in the greatness of America. They want perpetual war.

But most people are not neo-cons, even if they have been decieved by neo-con ideas, they support these ideas for different reasons.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

How do you have domestic fiscal sanity when we're still spending like madmen overseas? If we cut domestic expenses, all the money will almost definitely go into more adventurism overseas.

You have it backwards, Slutter, and I think you know that.

The wars have now costed us over a trillion dollars. Yes, that is ridiculous and dangerous. But social security, medicare, the new healthcare overhaul, steady unemployment, 70 trillion in unfunded liabilites and a bankrupt nation will cost us much much much more.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[amy31416]

The wars have now costed us over a trillion dollars. Yes, that is ridiculous and dangerous. But social security, medicare, the new healthcare overhaul, steady unemployment, 70 trillion in unfunded liabilites and a bankrupt nation will cost us much much much more.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

You miss the point...which spending is more destructive to the US and innocent people? If the corrupt gov't got their hands on all the entitlement spending, what would they do with it?

(And yes, I'm aware that it's "funny money.")

[jmdrake]

So would you consider Newt "I support Nancy Pelosi on climate change" a fiscal conservative? How about Sarah "the Bush bailout is about jobs and healthcare and tax cuts" Palin? And Newt was "for the bailout before he was against it".

Anyway, it's collectivist to say what should be our "number one" priority. If the civil liberties continue to erode eventually we won't have the ability to resist the fiscal stupidity coming out of Washington. And wasteful spending on Homeland inSecurity and wars help cause the domestic insanity. You can't seriously ask people to cut food aid to hungry kids while increasing needless military and "domestic security" spending. If you want to prioritize that way fine. But we have no reason to follow you lead.


Again, you are demonstrating the problem with using the term neo-con. Our alliance is not with neo-cons. It is with strong fiscal conservatives, many who are interventionists in the interest of security rather than spreading American exceptionalism.

This distinction is key. Because neo-cons pay lip service to fiscal issues. But the Jim Demint types are serious about it.

This should be a matter of priorities. And domestic fiscal sanity HAS to be our number one priority. Which is why the tea-party, insofar as it stays focused on this issue, is a good thing. After that, the wars should be our second priority....because fiscal sanity is a big part of that. And when it comes to this issue, the tea-party will not be our ally. Nor will it be our ally when it comes to what should be our third priority....civil liberties.

I don't mean to argue that civil liberties and the wars are not as important as domestic fiscal policy. They certainly are. Simply that the current political and economic climate presents domestic fiscal policy as the most opportune area in which to make gains for liberty.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[jmdrake]

How do you have domestic fiscal sanity when we're still spending like madmen overseas? If we cut domestic expenses, all the money will almost definitely go into more adventurism overseas.

You have it backwards, Slutter, and I think you know that.

This. Plus imposing some "domestic austerity plan" while spending like a drunk sailor overseas is a sure way for an Obama victory in 2012. Ron Paul said it best himself. If we rolled back the U.S. empire we could afford the social programs. Sure he's for phasing those out too, but not before phasing out the empire. Maybe Slutter expects the empire to fold on itself once soldiers have to be recalled to stop people rioting in the streets. ;)

[Slutter McGee]

I understand why people here don't like to play the political game. But I kinda enjoy it. Id love to help manipulate a liberty canididate into office someday. And I would lie, fib, flip-flop, and be dishonest to do it. And it would be fun. Oh...so much fun.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[YumYum]

I understand why people here don't like to play the political game. But I kinda enjoy it. Id love to help manipulate a liberty canididate into office someday. And I would lie, fib, flip-flop, and be dishonest to do it. And it would be fun. Oh...so much fun.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

If that is how Ron Paul would have run his campaign, I would have never supported nor voted for him. I am firmly convinced: its about principles.

[amy31416]

If that is how Ron Paul would have run his campaign, I would have never supported nor voted for him. I am firmly convinced: its about principles.

Dammit Yum, I hate agreeing with you because I think you're insane...

[jmdrake]

I understand why people here don't like to play the political game. But I kinda enjoy it. Id love to help manipulate a liberty canididate into office someday. And I would lie, fib, flip-flop, and be dishonest to do it. And it would be fun. Oh...so much fun.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Yeah. And I suppose sex with crack whores is fun too until you catch HIV. ;)

We're better off longterm supporting small scale candidates like Glenn Bradley in races where foreign policy doesn't matter than seeking how we can "flip flop" our way to the top. State races matter not only because they represent a buffer to stop an out of control federal government, but also because that builds a "farm team" to support for bigger elections. Just look at Justin Amash.

[YumYum]

Dammit Yum, I hate agreeing with you because I think you're insane...

:D

[Distinguished Gentleman]

I believe in the concept of a marginal revolution. Taking little steps to make the world better. History has shown that if you wait for a society to collapse before you try to rebuild it, the emergent order may be even less conducive to freedom.

Here are my reasons for cautiously supporting small government republicans despite neocon influence.

1. Current democrats have almost no redeeming qualities.
2. To the extent to which we agree with liberals, democratic politicians completely ignore them.
3. At the executive level, you can still vote with a clean conscience for third parties, yet vote for more palatable republican candidates locally.
4. We are influencing Republican voters in ways I don't think we can influence democrats.
5. Big issues. Socialized medicine, cap and trade.
6. Selfish reasons. I believe I will be much better off financially when we don't have an Obama managed economy.
7.Wars end for financial reasons, even under jackasses like Nixon.
8. With people as high up as Jeb Bush advocating School choice, future legislation has a real chance.
9. Neocons aren't an impenetrable cabal. Many believe that George Bush were under pressure to bomb Iran by Cheney, Krystal, and Krauthammer, but decided it wasn't practical.
10. We're already seeing small successes.


I don't believe in lying for political purposes. I do believe in picking and choosing battles, and knowing when to keep your mouth shut. cough*CRA* cough.

[Slutter McGee]

If that is how Ron Paul would have run his campaign, I would have never supported nor voted for him. I am firmly convinced: its about principles.

God. Yall are so easy to mess with.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[jmdrake]

God. Yall are so easy to mess with.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

So you were just trolling? :confused:

Anyway, YumYum has a point. The only reason there is a "Ron Paul movement" in the first place is because Ron was willing to stand up and be principled. Sure he could have "flip flopped" and tried to "stealth" his way in by sounding hawkish on foreign policy, and many (most?) of us would have ignored him and looked elsewhere.

[Old Ducker]

Again, you are demonstrating the problem with using the term neo-con. Our alliance is not with neo-cons. It is with strong fiscal conservatives, many who are interventionists in the interest of security rather than spreading American exceptionalism.

This distinction is key. Because neo-cons pay lip service to fiscal issues. But the Jim Demint types are serious about it.

This should be a matter of priorities. And domestic fiscal sanity HAS to be our number one priority. Which is why the tea-party, insofar as it stays focused on this issue, is a good thing. After that, the wars should be our second priority....because fiscal sanity is a big part of that. And when it comes to this issue, the tea-party will not be our ally. Nor will it be our ally when it comes to what should be our third priority....civil liberties.

I don't mean to argue that civil liberties and the wars are not as important as domestic fiscal policy. They certainly are. Simply that the current political and economic climate presents domestic fiscal policy as the most opportune area in which to make gains for liberty.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

Anyone who is serious about fiscal sanity has to select one (or more) of three things to cut:

a) Medicare
b) Social Security
c) Military spending

If they're not addressing those things, they're full of shit.