Tea Party Movement Scores Its First Political Scalp

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Janky Red

 

So you believe liberty is relative? Not just relative but easily redefined by prevailing structural need? Depressing to say the least.

People today have more in common with prisoners or slaves than they do free men. An hour in the yard or a day without a whipping do not qualify as liberty.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Depends - I think liberty is fluid not ridged - which is probably the basis of our disagreement and misunderstanding.

I do think there is a distinction between individual liberty and business matters. I believe the founding fathers laid the foundation to address the evolution
of monetary, technological, intellectual and social matters. Slavery, Woman's rights,
voter rights, monopoly laws, child labor laws, civil rights were all altered BECAUSE of the fluidity of LIBERTY. I would also say people used the ridged concept of liberty to counter every single great social change in our nations history.

I agree 100% with the last two sentences -

Although I bet we feel our liberty is hampered in different ways -

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Would someone tell me again why conservatives should want people like Scozzafava in the party?

I would submit, as evidenced by the poll numbers, they do not. The true conservatives, that is. Now, if you mean to ask why the Republican party wants people like her, I would say it is because, like them, she is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

reply to post by Janky Red

1st, if you consider wiki as "authority" for anything, you've got zero credibility in the real world.

2nd, to say you are all for an individual, but then speak in terms of the "public" you are posing:

When something can potentially impact the public, its money, health, security and especially the Implied Trust of Societies systems, I think it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation.

Spoken like a true socialist, not a libertarian. What money does the "public" own? What "systems" are you "implying" should be trusted? Those that suit you?


You think it is government's role to favor one person or group over another?
One sex? One color? One language? One faith?

You make yourself quite clear. Quit pretending to be some voice of reason.

Your philosophy and your vision of governance are bankrupt.

I also do NOT think any company is afforded the same rights as an individual.

In the United States of America, a partnership, association, and corporation are given the status of "person" for the transaction of business and the ownership of property.

In marxist and communist systems they are not. In fascism, they are PARTNERS of the government. Suits you to a "T" doesn't it?

What other "persons" do you believe do not have certain rights in the USA? Only those who don't look and think and sound like you?

Just because something is monitized does not always mean it should be protected if it creates detriment to society.

I can agree in part with this, but please explain then, why Barack Obama is allowing the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve to "monetize" the treasury's debt?

This is YOUR "lefty" government monetizing debt that no one else will buy, so that more cash flows to the mega-banks and into Wall Street to keep the stock markets up despite the failed economic disaster they have created. Debt that has to be covered with INDIVIDUALS' earnings and tax payments.

Of course, the mega banks hedge their investments, but the average retiree and 401k pensioner are being KILLED by this market manipulation.

You really just have no idea what to say, except what you think the liberal gospel requires you to. When you get a grownup to explain things to you, try posting something logically consistent and reality-based.

jw

Originally posted by endisnighe

jw, just out, Republican candidate backs the Democrat opponent after dropping out. Yeah, the Dems and Repubs are two different parties.
Definite facepalm required.
edit to add new thread on the announcement of a Republican backing a Democrat
Scozzafava Announces Support for Owens

I laughed out loud when I heard this during a radio program I was streaming.

Just how shallow and how morally bankrupt have these parties become?

They are now PROVEN interchangeable!

Using SG's logic, since Scozzafava has received the "support and funds" of the Republican Party, and since she now "supports" the Democrat, the Democrat has been "hijacked by" and taken over by the Republicans!
Applying SG's "logic" the Democrats are now the Republicans' lackeys.

What a great country! What great minds we have in our Southern Guardian(s).

Long live ignorance.

Of course, today IS El Dia de los Muertos: "The Day of the Dead!"

Perfect timing, I'd say.

jw

[edit on 1-11-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by vor78

Would someone tell me again why conservatives should want people like Scozzafava in the party?

Pssst. Don't tell SG, Janky Red, or their comrades ... .
Conservatives don't care where people like Owens and Sozzafava hang out, as long as it's not in Congress.

jw



[edit on 1-11-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Hey Hunkahunka, you do know that the nazi party was socialist, don't you? The party was the national socialist German workers party. That is about as left as you can get with out signing a round of l'international. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was location of birth. Same sociopath different facial hair.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Yeah, the Dems and Repubs are two different parties.

Definite facepalm required.

(edit to add new thread on the announcement of a Republican backing a Democrat)

Scozzafava Announces Support for Owens

Great find and thread.

Only proves how a truly independent presence is NECESSARY in Congress.

Just look at what Joe Lieberman does to the Democrats! A few more "rogues" would be good for us.
(that word seems awfully familiar)

Many would be happy if everyone was one party or the other, but as of today, it doesn't make any difference!

If we had a few more principled independents, we'd see some of the weak sisters "man up" and real conservative-led coalitions forming.

Years ago, a guy from San Antonio went to Congress and refused to sell-out. His name was "Maverick."

Maury Maverick got support from minorities and spoke his mind. Drove the PTB crazy. We need more "mavericks" in Congress today, and a few "rogues" as well.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Janky Red

 

1st, if you consider wiki as "authority" for anything, you've got zero credibility in the real world.

2nd, to say you are all for an individual, but then speak in terms of the "public" you are posing:

When something can potentially impact the public, its money, health, security and especially the Implied Trust of Societies systems, I think it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation.

Spoken like a true socialist, not a libertarian. What money does the "public" own? What "systems" are you "implying" should be trusted? Those that suit you?


You think it is government's role to favor one person or group over another?
One sex? One color? One language? One faith?

You make yourself quite clear. Quit pretending to be some voice of reason.

Your philosophy and your vision of governance are bankrupt.

I also do NOT think any company is afforded the same rights as an individual.

In the United States of America, a partnership, association, and corporation are given the status of "person" for the transaction of business and the ownership of property.

In marxist and communist systems they are not. In fascism, they are PARTNERS of the government. Suits you to a "T" doesn't it?

What other "persons" do you believe do not have certain rights in the USA? Only those who don't look and think and sound like you?

Just because something is monitized does not always mean it should be protected if it creates detriment to society.

I can agree in part with this, but please explain then, why Barack Obama is allowing the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve to "monetize" the treasury's debt?

This is YOUR "lefty" government monetizing debt that no one else will buy, so that more cash flows to the mega-banks and into Wall Street to keep the stock markets up despite the failed economic disaster they have created. Debt that has to be covered with INDIVIDUALS' earnings and tax payments.

Of course, the mega banks hedge their investments, but the average retiree and 401k pensioner are being KILLED by this market manipulation.

You really just have no idea what to say, except what you think the liberal gospel requires you to. When you get a grownup to explain things to you, try posting something logically consistent and reality-based.

jw

Spoken like a true authority on all things authoritarian, practicing your Libefuast!

Implied trust is social theory which is based upon a populations trust in government, citizens or industry alike, it is an unspoken agreement that creates the basic fabric of trust between people of all stations.

You expect the cops to come when you call them
You expect that your food has not been poisoned
You expect that people will drive going the right way on the freeway
and
You expect that the financial institutions will not systematically destroy the financial system

The above is implied trust, it should be a given, the way non sociopathic people expect things to operate under normal circumstances.

Once again

When something can potentially impact the public, its money, health, security and especially the Implied Trust of Societies systems, I think it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation.

Lets look at the word society in a DICTIONARY (I don't think it is the socialist edition and I don't read German, sorry)

Date: 1531

2 : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a : a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity b : a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

My philosophy is fine - unless you are authoritarian, I am free to think and express my beliefs freely. I also recognize that my socialist idea of using legislation as the primary tool of legal implementation does not fit well with your agenda which you so quickly recognized as socialist.

You are a true Authority in defining the boundaries of freedom!

Originally posted by rob20153
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Hey Hunkahunka, you do know that the nazi party was socialist, don't you? The party was the national socialist German workers party. That is about as left as you can get with out signing a round of l'international.

The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was location of birth. Same sociopath different facial hair.

Oh Jes -

Alright Mr. Bright

The nazi's were anti Communist and anti Liberal - Their largest political rivalry was
the KPD or the communist party of Germany -

In fact the NAZI party was the third party that that was a reaction to the liberalization
of German culture and you got two stars already for squirting out mindless ignorance!

YAY!

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Avenginggecko


I don't buy your analysis at all; the evangelicals are not necessarily "hard core" republicans. I could care less about abortion and some of their other hot button issues; some of these evangelicals have absolutely no problem with hiding illegals in their church's rectory for example or signing on to Bush's BIG GOVERNMENT "faith based initiatives" programs. I.e. they have no qualms about pork barrel spending while the infrastructure decays as long as they get their fair share of big government ham hocks. while they worry about pleasing the Zionists, hoping to keep them around so their ridiculous apocalyptic 2012 scenarios involving the rapture can play out, we in the real world are worried more about what the Zionist plutocrats are doing to us in the here and now: raping Wall St., 95 of 100 of our oligarch billionaires are Zionists, they control the MSM, Hollywood, the printing presses at the Federal Reserve, the universities, etc. while White Christian males are an endangered species in the so-called corporate world where the so-called elites for now are crashing the US so they can feather their own nests. what the likes of Bob Moffat and others are finding out is the dark side of what happens when the Zionist NWO types come after them too.

reply to post by jdub297


I agree somewhat with Southern Guardian's analysis; Palin was merely a feel good narrative story for the consumption of the know nothing populist evangelicals ... a classic case of Republican's being unable and unwilling to put forth an intellectual statesman who puts America first ahead of the Rothschild empire headquartered in Israel and the corporate plutocrats behind it running both political parties. my eyes were rolling in their sockets when the likes of the Cristol clan were tutoring this know nothing Palin cipher; while Israel is controlled by Israel first statesman Palin is being tutored in the rudiments of American history by her neo-Con handlers!

I am a Republican and even I can see that the entire "Tea Party" movement is nothing more than a form of Alternative Reality Viral Marketing Campaign in order to bolster fund raising on the political side and viewership for Fox News as well as the sale of merchandise.

This has more to do with Corporate competition for consumers and building an army that can lobby for their domination in the marketplace.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by DJM8507]

Originally posted by Janky Red

Spoken like a true authority on all things authoritarian, practicing your Libefuast!

You really have no idea what you are saying (or trying to say), do you?

Implied trust is social theory which is based upon a populations trust in government, citizens or industry alike, it is an unspoken agreement that creates the basic fabric of trust between people of all stations.

You expect the cops to come when you call them
You expect that your food has not been poisoned
You expect that people will drive going the right way on the freeway
and
You expect that the financial institutions will not systematically destroy the financial system
The above is implied trust, it should be a given, the way non sociopathic people expect things to operate under normal circumstances.

NO!. It is not.

It is earned trust!

Do you just dial some random number and expect police or the FD to show up? Stop at any "vendor" and expect to be fed safely? Enter a street without looking at the directional and control signs and expect to proceed safely?

The examples you give are of EARNED trust: a system proven reliable in the past will continue to be so in the future.

You PRESUME the existence of a system of altruisitc benevolence, in which everyone reliant thereupon is entitlied to what? "Equal protection?"

Last I checked, that didn't matter on wealth, or affiliation or even natural v. artificial v. legal distinctions. You're "equal" or you're not.

When something can potentially impact the public, its money, health, security and especially the Implied Trust of Societies systems, I think it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation.

OK.

My ancestors were born in Africa. We do not have the same property, work or security rights as the majority. We believe that we should have as much right to property, work, and security as the people born in this country. They are in the majority. My requests will definitely impact the "public money, health, security."

So, you insist " it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation" that we should not get equal rights with the majority.

How pathetic.

deny ignorance

jw

I believe that its about time this is happening. Its time to get rid of the people on both sides of the aisle and put in somebody that actually has a backbone instead of somebody who is willing to sell their soul for a nickel. I just hope it doesnt become exploited and if it does, we start up a new group to kick out the exploiters, way sooner than we have waited now.

reply to post by DJM8507

I am a Republican and even I can see that the entire "Tea Party" movement is nothing more than a form of Alternative Reality Viral Marketing Campaign in order to bolster fund raising on the political side and viewership for Fox News as well as the sale of merchandise.

This has more to do with Corporate competition for consumers and building an army that can lobby for their domination in the marketplace.

I am sick of claims that their proponents can not back up.

Can you defend your post? Are you just a mouthpiece? Or an empty echo for something else?

... I can see that the entire "Tea Party" movement is nothing more than ...

Get ready to prove your assertions:

1. " a[n] Alternative Reality Viral Marketing Campaign"

2. to bolster fund raising on the political side

3.[to bolster] viewership for Fox News

4. [to bolster] the sale of merchandise.

GO!

1. Outline the campaign
2. Follow the money
3. Prove how TPM advocates FOR ANY media outlet
4. Differentiate between artifacts (flags, badges) and propaganda ("merchandise")

As I've seen so consistently, it's very easy to spout tripe.

It's another altogether to back it up with fact.

Go. Or go away.

jw

[edit on 2-11-2009 by jdub297]

What we are seeing here and nation wide is the awakening of the silent majority. The election of Barack Obama has taught us that we should no longer vote for the pretty face or the most likely to win, but to vote with your heart and look at the persons life and actions. Yes, they cast out the RINO and went for Hoffman who will win. Suddenly the GOP realized that the sheep have now become bulls and will not be led about by the whim of the elite, even if it costs some seats.

Democrats would be wise to consider what is happening because it's not about party anymore. People are just fed up with it all. The people want to change the way it was for so long. Come 2010, the only democrats standing will be the conservative ones and those that vote against stimulus, amnesty, and healthcare (Obamacare).

And it's not a "tea party" thing but a knee jerk reaction of the oppressed upon their oppressors. There will be a lot of retired Senators and congress people come 2010.

Originally posted by jdub297

As I've seen so consistently, it's very easy to spout tripe.

It's another altogether to back it up with fact.

If you'd like to show me where I am wrong then please do so.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by DJM8507]

reply to post by Fromabove


I agree, to an extent. I think that what's happening is that the Democrats, egged on by their adoring MSM, have badly misread their supposed 'mandate'. As I said even then, the last two election cycles were about the public rejecting Republican party...not conservatism. That was a critical error on the part of team Obama, the Democrats, and their media lackeys. As they've lurched to the left on a number of issues, their poll numbers have dropped precipitously, public discontent has grown louder and louder, and independents and moderates are fleeing this sinking ship.

I think what we're actually seeing is the beginning of a massive anti-incumbent sentiment in the populace. That's not necessarily good news for the GOP, mind you. They still have to win them back as well, and its not helping them by running liberals like Scozzafava who will stab conservatives in the back at the first possible opportunity. The GOP needs to get its act together quickly, or 2010 and 2012 may well be the year(s) of the conservative and conservative-leaning independent.

Originally posted by DJM8507
I am a Republican and even I can see that the entire "Tea Party" movement is nothing more than a form of Alternative Reality Viral Marketing Campaign in order to bolster fund raising on the political side and viewership for Fox News as well as the sale of merchandise.

This has more to do with Corporate competition for consumers and building an army that can lobby for their domination in the marketplace.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by DJM8507]

Thank you for speaking up!

Most of you are all wet. As a TPM, this is not about party lines or a third party period. This is about Americas values, morals, freedom and the constitution. The TPM realize that a conservative cannot run and win in every election - but the majority of voters will back the one that come closest to the conservative ideals of the TP, be that dem, rep, ind, cons, etc. If you have the TPM vlues and can prove it, have shown it - then you have a pretty good chance of being elected.

As anote to the Dems or Reps that may be reading this - if you try to hangon to the TPM coat tails, you wil loose. If you did not have the moral fabric to begin with, you will not get the TPM support or vote.

As the TPM goes: we know who we are, we know what we want and we know who we want.