The Republican Thread

[GoSox05]

So would you say the tea party stuff has grown out of the libertarian movement maybe? Kinda?

[StrangeSox]

So would you say the tea party stuff has grown out of the libertarian movement maybe? Kinda?

 

No, it's still mainly conservatism.

[GoSox05]

When I here stuff being said like smaller government and personal freedoms I think of libertarians.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it's still mainly conservatism.

 

Based on? Again, have you actually gone to a rally? Or is this your opinion based on news reports?

 

It's very much libertarian. And yeah, it's anti-liberal because that's who's in the white house and congress. I heard mutiple people speak about getting rid of everyone in washington, not just specific party members.

[Rex Kickass]

Yep. So true. Absolutely true. All of them that are nominated and that organize. All racists haters. Yep. 100% accurate. No need to verify. You've spoken the truth on this one.

 

GMAFB. Take the blinders off and open your eyes.

No, GMAFB. Just answering hyperbole with hyperbole. But Tea Party activists are extremists.

[southsider2k5]

So would you say the tea party stuff has grown out of the libertarian movement maybe? Kinda?

 

Extremely libertarian

[Balta1701]

Extremely libertarian

Except when it comes to freedom of religion.

[StrangeSox]

And foreign policy.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've said before, and will again... there is a difference between what the tea party movement started with (mostly libertarianism) and what is has become (co-opted by the neo-cons).

 

[Balta1701]

I've said before, and will again... there is a difference between what the tea party movement started with (mostly libertarianism) and what is has become (co-opted by the neo-cons).

And I haven't seen a single thing to convince me that it was anything other than a well funded, well planned means of getting the Bush 20% out on the streets and active despite having lost an election.

[NorthSideSox72]

And I haven't seen a single thing to convince me that it was anything other than a well funded, well planned means of getting the Bush 20% out on the streets and active despite having lost an election.

It was - after things had already gotten started. The GOP saw that nice car on the street and attempting to carjack it. Except the tea partier is still driving, the GOP is just along for the ride, which is not really the way they planned it.

 

[EvilMonkey]

And I haven't seen a single thing to convince me that it was anything other than a well funded, well planned means of getting the Bush 20% out on the streets and active despite having lost an election.

Ok Ms pelosi, do you have any proof for that wild accusation, or just blowing smoke out your butt again? Well funded by who? Or are you just pissed that this really DID start as a true grassroots movement, as opposed to all the manufacured ones funded by Soros and friends? The mainstream Repubs involved now jumped on the bandwagon well after it started rolling along, and I don't see any wealthy billionaire pulling strings behind the scenes.

[Balta1701]

Ok Ms pelosi, do you have any proof for that wild accusation, or just blowing smoke out your butt again? Well funded by who? Or are you just pissed that this really DID start as a true grassroots movement, as opposed to all the manufacured ones funded by Soros and friends? The mainstream Repubs involved now jumped on the bandwagon well after it started rolling along, and I don't see any wealthy billionaire pulling strings behind the scenes.

You should read up on Koch industries. They're like George Soros except no one pays attention and they give a ton more money to political causes.

[StrangeSox]

Isn't one of the bigger "grass-roots" tea party groups run by Dick Armey?

[GoSox05]

Isn't one of the bigger "grass-roots" tea party groups run by Dick Armey?

 

FreedomWorks which is funded by lots of big corps including Phillip Morris.

[EvilMonkey]

You should read up on Koch industries. They're like George Soros except no one pays attention and they give a ton more money to political causes.

I have heard of them. And of course everythgn I read has the think tanks they support as being very partisan and right leaning, while contrasting to all the center, non-partisan groups funded by Soros. I still dont see where the funding is coming from for the Tea party stuff.

[mr_genius]

So would you say the tea party stuff has grown out of the libertarian movement maybe? Kinda?

 

I definitely think it is a big segment of the 'tea party'.

[EvilMonkey]

In just the first section of your link, they talk about the Center for Public Integrity as a 'non-partisan watchdog group.' Go to wikipedia and in the first paragraph you get " The Center is partisan, and advocates for traditionally liberal causes" Ancd it is funded in part by the aforementioned Mr. Soros.

 

"The Center has been criticized for accepting large funds from George Soros, a politically active billionaire and critic of the Bush administration.[25][28][29][30]. The Web site of one of Soros' organizations, the Open Society Institute, discloses four grants to the Center, all made before his entry into the 2004 presidential contest. They are:

 

A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[32]

A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[33]

A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[34]

A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project"

 

Oh, and this line, by the king of astroturfing himself about the Kochs in laughable.

 

"David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

 

 

Edited August 26, 2010 by Alpha Dog

[mr_genius]

In just the first section of your link, they talk about the Center for Public Integrity as a 'non-partisan watchdog group.' Go to wikipedia and in the first paragraph you get " The Center is partisan, and advocates for traditionally liberal causes" Ancd it is funded in part by the aforementioned Mr. Soros.

 

"The Center has been criticized for accepting large funds from George Soros, a politically active billionaire and critic of the Bush administration.[25][28][29][30]. The Web site of one of Soros' organizations, the Open Society Institute, discloses four grants to the Center, all made before his entry into the 2004 presidential contest. They are:

 

A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[32]

A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[33]

A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[34]

A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project"

 

hey buddy, you need to realize that billionaire hedge fund manager money and corporate donations that go to Democrats is good and pure. Unlike the evil forces funding the horrible and mean 'tea party'.

[Balta1701]

hey buddy, you need to realize that billionaire hedge fund manager money and corporate donations that go to Democrats is good and pure. Unlike the evil forces funding the horrible and mean 'tea party'.

Oh, so you admit that it's a bad thing when billionaires fund media groups now? So, you're willing to toss AFP and Freedomworks off the boat? Because there's basically your Tea Party.

 

Like I said...it's perfectly ok to criticize millions coming from Soros, but the tens of millions coming from Koch Industries? How dare I say that those tens of millions of dollars had anything to do with the tens of millions of dollars spent organizing the tea parties.

[lostfan]

I see "Tea Party" and I really just think "Republican" and it's the same product in a new package with sleeker marketing because the old brand got damaged so badly (something which Republican leaders were acutely aware of after the 2008 bloodbath). None of their ideas are anything anyone who follows politics hasn't heard before, they're all part of general conservative ideas. The only exception maybe is the populist anger at Wall Street, the rewarding of failure etc.

 

It's not really any different before. Prior to 2009 you used to have people who called themselves libertarian because for whatever reason they didn't like being called Republican, but have voted Republican in every election for their life. They're the same people now, a lot of people claim to be Tea Partiers (read: libertarian) but are all for Republican policies and dismiss/scoff at the orthodox libertarian policy when there is a traditional Republican policy that overrides it. Example: against gay marriage (libertarian ideology says the state has no business in this). Aggressive foreign policy/advocacy of intervention (libertarianism calls for less of this). And since we're talking about it a lot lately, opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" (quotes used since it's not a mosque and not at ground zero, there is nothing libertarian at all about weighing in on someone's right to religious freedom).

Edited August 26, 2010 by lostfan

[mr_genius]

Oh, so you admit that it's a bad thing when billionaires fund media groups now? So, you're willing to toss AFP and Freedomworks off the boat? Because there's basically your Tea Party.

 

Like I said...it's perfectly ok to criticize millions coming from Soros, but the tens of millions coming from Koch Industries? How dare I say that those tens of millions of dollars had anything to do with the tens of millions of dollars spent organizing the tea parties.

 

No, I am mocking you for your acceptance of corporate and hedge fund manager bribes to the Democrats, while you complain about a group of libertarians giving money to the 'tea party'.

 

I thought that was obvious

Edited August 26, 2010 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

I see "Tea Party" and I really just think "Republican" and it's the same product in a new package with sleeker marketing because the old brand got damaged so badly (something which Republican leaders were acutely aware of after the 2008 bloodbath). None of their ideas are anything anyone who follows politics hasn't heard before, they're all part of general conservative ideas. The only exception maybe is the populist anger at Wall Street, the rewarding of failure etc.

 

It's not really any different before. Prior to 2009 you used to have people who called themselves libertarian because for whatever reason they didn't like being called Republican, but have voted Republican in every election for their life. They're the same people now, a lot of people claim to be Tea Partiers (read: libertarian) but are all for Republican policies and dismiss/scoff at the orthodox libertarian policy when there is a traditional Republican policy that overrides it. Example: against gay marriage (libertarian ideology says the state has no business in this). Aggressive foreign policy/advocacy of intervention (libertarianism calls for less of this). And since we're talking about it a lot lately, opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" (quotes used since it's not a mosque and not at ground zero, there is nothing libertarian at all about weighing in on someone's right to religious freedom).

 

The GOP went the direction of being a big spending, nation building, endless war starting, trillion dollar bailouts, corrupt, sold out political party. Voters left them. The GOP still isn't very popular, it's just that the current Democrats are so unbelievably terrible at what they have been elected to do.

[lostfan]

The GOP went the direction of being a big spending, nation building, endless war starting, trillion dollar bailouts, corrupt, sold out political party. Voters left them. The GOP still isn't very popular, it's just that the current Democrats are so unbelievably terrible at what they have been elected to do.

s*** I think even Democratic voters would agree with you that the Democrats are f***ups. But I mean, do you want to be burned alive or shot in the head?

 

And also I noticed there is a "pox on both of your houses" subcurrent in the Tea Partiers too (still more that faithfully vote Republican though)

[kapkomet]

I see "Tea Party" and I really just think "Republican" and it's the same product in a new package with sleeker marketing because the old brand got damaged so badly (something which Republican leaders were acutely aware of after the 2008 bloodbath). None of their ideas are anything anyone who follows politics hasn't heard before, they're all part of general conservative ideas. The only exception maybe is the populist anger at Wall Street, the rewarding of failure etc.

 

It's not really any different before. Prior to 2009 you used to have people who called themselves libertarian because for whatever reason they didn't like being called Republican, but have voted Republican in every election for their life. They're the same people now, a lot of people claim to be Tea Partiers (read: libertarian) but are all for Republican policies and dismiss/scoff at the orthodox libertarian policy when there is a traditional Republican policy that overrides it. Example: against gay marriage (libertarian ideology says the state has no business in this). Aggressive foreign policy/advocacy of intervention (libertarianism calls for less of this). And since we're talking about it a lot lately, opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" (quotes used since it's not a mosque and not at ground zero, there is nothing libertarian at all about weighing in on someone's right to religious freedom).

 

IT IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Holy s***, does that get it through your head?