Looking for a leader, Tea Partiers issue invite to Palin

reply to post by JayinAR

No, Uniceft isn't just "talking a lot"...
He/she hits on two critical points.
1) Supporting unneccesary wars... which at one point were calculated to have cost the American tax payer 700 billion dollars. I'm not sure of the total now, as I have stopped paying attention. Lets just say it is a crap load.

Palin supported the war. So did some of the Tea Party protestors. So what? It means nothing. The protests were not founded on objection to the war. *Some* protestors may have disagreed with the wars, but it was nowhere near a key element.

2) She OPENLY STATED that she wanted to expand the powers of the Vice President. This is in direct contradiction with the objectives of a movement that is, at its core, conservative in Governmental scope.

Expand? In which way? Like giving him/her more responsibility than attending funerals and cutting the ribbons at ceremonies?

Might be a good idea, in case the VP is called upon to asume the duties of POTUS.

She is, in her face, directly in contradiction to what the movement was founded on.

Sez you. But that is only your opinion. Many would disagree with you, and would welcome her to the protests.

Pork projects?
On the one hand it is nice to say you want to reign in spending. You can even argue that she did a good thing bringing money to her district to keep it out of federal coffers. However, the foul is to designate the LARGE SUM to a worthless cause.
I'm sure there were some roads in Anchorage that could have used repaving, rather than a dead-end bridge.

She once supported the bridge, but changed her mind.

Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAlister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead … there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design."

She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."

www.usatoday.com...

Shows maturity, being able to reevaluate her position.

reply to post by Uniceft17


Hey kiddo, fyi I'm a 100% red-blooded American male.

And block you? Don't flatter yourself. I have never used the ignore function; I'm not that insecure.

And if I ever did choose to use it, you would be be nowhere near the top of my list.

I just don't answer you because you don't say much worth responding to.

reply to post by jsobecky


1) As a Governing official, it is her job to see through the emotives of such an endeavour and to do what is best by her constituents fiscally AS WELL as morally.
2) I don't care WHAT she meant by expanding the Powers of the Vice President. Bigger Government is Bigger Government is Bigger Government. Honestly, considering the rest of her background I wouldn't be so dismissive of these calls that she made.
3) Yes, after requesting the money, she backtracked... after the deal was made. And she still used the money...
4) No, it is not a matter of "sez you"... I have just shown why she is in contradiction to the Tea Party movement. You can accept it or not.

Besides all of that, this wasn't a Republican movement. She wouldn't dare show her face there. Why?
Because most people within the movement would leave.

This entire argument is sorta' silly, really. You are arguing from a position that doesn't have any basis in reality. It will never happen. Know why? Because SHE knows I'm right.
What you think on the issue matters not.

Oh yeah, on ethics reform.
She wasn't exactly cleared on those charges.
She resigned her office in advance of any results in the investigation. Lest you forget. ... conveniently.

And with that I will take my leave now.
Good night, folks.

reply to post by JayinAR

1) As a Governing official, it is her job to see through the emotives of such an endeavour and to do what is best by her constituents fiscally AS WELL as morally.

What the hell does that mean??

2) I don't care WHAT she meant by expanding the Powers of the Vice President. Bigger Government is Bigger Government is Bigger Government. Honestly, considering the rest of her background I wouldn't be so dismissive of these calls that she made.

So you are against making our elected officials work harder or more efficiently, are you? You would rather they sidle on their idle hands instead of doing productive work. eh?

3) Yes, after requesting the money, she backtracked... after the deal was made. And she still used the money...

She didn't request the money. She wasn't even governor when she agreed with building the bridge.

I get the sense that you are just regurgitating liberal talking points, and have no idea of what the back stories are here.

Take some books along with you on your camping trips. Might do you some good.

This entire argument is sorta' silly, really. You are arguing from a position that doesn't have any basis in reality. It will never happen. Know why? Because SHE knows I'm right.
What you think on the issue matters not.

Once again, your opinion only. And you know what they say about opinions, don't you? Everybody has one and they all stink.

I get the feeling that you'll be the one with egg on your face when she is warmly welcomed to the meetings next week.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Hey kiddo, fyi I'm a 100% red-blooded American male.

Sorry about that.

But first you said this:

What exactly were the Tea Party protests about?

Then you said this:

Palin supported the war. So did some of the Tea Party protestors. So what? It means nothing. The protests were not founded on objection to the war

If you didn't know exactly what they were about how did you know they weren't founded on the war.

I've been a tea party member for almost 2 years, the first reason I was drawn to them was because of Ron Paul the second was because of the war and foreign policy, At first it had EVERYTHING to do with the war and monetary policy, everything.

Your right VERY few members may have supported the war, but back then that was what the tea party was all about, that was the main point, so I don't see why they would have joined if the main point conflicted with thear beliefs.

The tea party movement was based on Ron Paul's ideals, less government, less spending, end all the wars, strict constituionalist.

There are no exceptions when it comes to the constitution, that is a major reason why Palin should just stay away, and the fact that in the beginning a major staple of the movement was ending all the wars, it wasn't the only main point, but it was 1st or 2nd in the main reasons for the tea party movement, and non-interventionist foreign policy which Sarah Palin once again goes against.

If you had bad enough judgement to vote for the war in Iraq, or support it back in the beggining then that should automatically disqualify you.

Sez you. But that is only your opinion. Many would disagree with you, and would welcome her to the protests.

That's because the movement has been hijacked, I wish you would have went to a tea party protest pre-election before it became a partisan side-show and seen what it was really about.

Why didn't Palin or any of the other conservative leaders or the majority of so called bi-partisan protesters embrace this movement back when republicans were in power doing the same thing? Was it because it stood against what they stood for when they were in power? Partly, but it also had to do with the fact that tea partiers didn't want them around back then, this was supposed to be non partisan. Now it stinks with partisanship.

I just don't answer you because you don't say much worth responding to.

So your not going to address the fact that you still lied? That your brought up the popularity argument in the first place and then ignored me when I countinued to call you out on it? That you put words in my mouth? and that you deflect constantly?

[edit on 9/5/2009 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 9/5/2009 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 9/5/2009 by Uniceft17]

reply to post by Uniceft17

If you didn't know exactly what they were about how did you know they weren't founded on the war.

Oh, I knew before I asked. I just wanted to see if he knew.

If you had bad enough judgement to vote for the war in Iraq, or support it back in the beggining then that should automatically disqualify you.

That would disqualify almost every member of congress.

The tea party movement was based on Ron Paul's ideals, less government, less spending, end all the wars, strict constituionalist.

No they weren't. In your case they were, because you're a fan of his, but they were not based on RP ideals.

They've been pretty much replaced with the town hall meetings now anyway. But they can still be of some benefit.

So your not going to address the fact that you still lied? That your brought up the popularity argument in the first place and then ignored me when I countinued to call you out on it? That you put words in my mouth? and that you deflect constantly?

Nah, I'm good where I'm at.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Oh, I knew before I asked. I just wanted to see if he knew.

I'm sure.

That would disqualify almost every member of congress.

Even better.

No they weren't. In your case they were, because you're a fan of his, but they were not based on RP ideals.

Ok now you are lying again, the tea party protests started on December 16th 2007, to raise money for Ron Paul and to protest the wars, foreign policy and outrageous spending, all of Ron Pauls ideals, the main argument of the outrageous spending was the wars. After Ron Paul lost the nomination the Tea Party protests became what his ideals were about. Fast forward to after November 4th 2009, all the sudden we get a surge of new members who change what the tea party movement was all about, soon afterwards the tea partiers want Palin as a leader or speaker, as has been shown in this thread almost everyone on here was a former tea partier and they are all in agreement, this has been turned into some partisan bs.

Please don't ignore these.

Source

Ron Paul donors outdid themselves Sunday, helping their candidate set a new record for online contributions in a 24-hour period. In a fundraising initiative set to coincide with the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the Republican congressman from Texas raised more than $6 million, surpassing the one-day $4.2 million haul the campaign recorded last month.

Paul’s libertarian views and opposition to the Iraq war have attracted a fervent grass-roots following, particularly online, but he has yet to translate that into mainstream appeal. That could change, however, as the campaign begins spending its bulging war chest in the early primary states.

Source

It was hard to say when the turning point was, It may have been around the time that Paul stood up to Rudolph W. Giuliani. At a May debate, the former New York mayor interrupted a discourse by Paul on how the Republican Party had been led astray by an interventionist foreign policy that had, among other things, helped set the stage for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Giuliani, full of outrage, condemned the notion that "we invited the attack" and asked Paul to "withdraw that comment." The crowd roared, but Paul held firm as he explained "blowback": "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free," he said. "They come and they attack us because we're over there."

Likewise, the forms that the uprising have taken are too many to number. There are the coordinated online assaults on Internet polls and political reporters who dare slight Dr. Paul; the printing press in New Hampshire owned by a Paul supporter that has churned out tens of thousands of fliers to distribute around the country; the one-day "money bomb" that shattered a record by bringing in more than $4 million. And the blimp, emblazoned with Paul's name, that is being flown to Boston for another "money bomb" commemorating the Boston Tea Party today.

The Tea Party movement started with Ron Paul and all his ideals and it continued even after he lost the nomination on those ideals, mainly so much spending on the wars and ending them, foreign policy, taxes, government getting bigger, and monetary policy. And has already been pointed out the movement has been hijacked, it's no longer about foreign policy, ending the wars, and monetary policy. The movement now probably doesn't know a thing about monetary policy, I never here anyone protesting that and that is the MOST IMPORTANT issue today, it needs more attention or we are going to be carrying around useless dollars here soon, but the movement or Palin doesnt' want to discuss that.

It seems to me that all the movement is about now is getting another Republican back in office, if it wasn't this movement would have grown more earlier, but it didn't until a Democrat was in office, but it didn't matter when a Republican was in office, how many republican leaders or politicians embraced this whenever Bush was in office? Can you name me atleast 5? Can you see why it stinks to high heaven in partisanship? According to FOX news if you protested pre-obama then you were a terrorist and un-American, Do you remember when FOX news used to belittle The Tea Party movement pre-election? Now they are all for it, i'm going to quit here, i think i've made the point.

Nah, I'm good where I'm at.

Exactly what I thought.

[edit on 9/5/2009 by Uniceft17]

[edit on 9/5/2009 by Uniceft17]

lol the blind leading the blind. i hope she does lead it will give me more to laugh at.