Tea Party Movement Scores Its First Political Scalp

Right now, I don't care what party a person is. if they'll follow the constitution, and will get off our backs, and do what they should be doing, I'll vote for them. I've always voted for the person, not the party.
I believe when enough Dems, and enough Reppublicans get voted out, congress will get the message. The Republicans are starting to lick their chops at the thought of a wholesale reversal of the congresssional balance of power in congress. if they aren't carefull, they will get left out in the cold. I stuill call for wholsale removal of all . I ask again, could congress do any worse than it already has. Experience in office has helped these scumbags be better legislaturers. it has only made them smarter at working our laws against us, and raising taxes. That's all they're good at. They vote themselves raises, and have their own lifetime paid medical. And you think they're looking out for you?

I would especially like to see these lifetime office holders removed. They serve no usefull purpose, except the ability to pervert the trust of their constituents, and use their office for a lifetime of benefits paid by you and me.

Lets give these people the pink slip. We do need to find new candidates who will pledge to be constitutionists, and stop voting for every bill that comes along. The system is broken, and can only be fixed with fresh faces with an unbiased agenda. Put a majority in office and start by reversing some of these idiotic stimulus plans.

I realize these are simplistic ideas, but you understand the principles involved. I feel the FED would never let some changes happen without mass economic chaos: in other words, they have the country by the shorthairs, and can do whatever they wish. Things have gone so far that the bottom must be reached before the climb out can begin. We are not yet at the bottom. The FED has some more pain in store for Americans.

Just follow this principal--vote all incumbants out--shake things up, no matter how much you love your represenative. start over. Only then can we put the fear of the vorte in these carpetbaggers.

and as far as cutting taxes!!! ...the more the top 5% of people and the corporations have had their taxes cut, the more severe and quicker the recessions have come. don't believe me? do some research from the 1950's on, when at that time we had the highest taxes on each of the above, and look at the statistics for each recession going forward.

reply to post by Janky Red

American lefties are generally "Libertarian" and American Righties are generally "Authoritarian"

Are you serious? "lefties" are "Libertarian? You must be kidding. No one (credibly) even make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously.

Look at the Libertarian Party and its main tenets. These in no way come close to what is currently in power in America today. In fact, many are the OPPOSITE!

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
...

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
...

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

www.lp.org...

Did you come here to intentionally misinform or do you do it by accident?

Deny ignorance!

jw


[edit on 1-11-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by mrpotatohead
Right now, I don't care what party a person is. if they'll follow the constitution, and will get off our backs, and do what they should be doing, I'll vote for them. I've always voted for the person, not the party.
I believe when enough Dems, and enough Reppublicans get voted out, congress will get the message. The Republicans are starting to lick their chops at the thought of a wholesale reversal of the congresssional balance of power in congress. if they aren't carefull, they will get left out in the cold. I stuill call for wholsale removal of all . I ask again, could congress do any worse than it already has. Experience in office has helped these scumbags be better legislaturers. it has only made them smarter at working our laws against us, and raising taxes. That's all they're good at. They vote themselves raises, and have their own lifetime paid medical. And you think they're looking out for you?

I would especially like to see these lifetime office holders removed. They serve no usefull purpose, except the ability to pervert the trust of their constituents, and use their office for a lifetime of benefits paid by you and me.

Lets give these people the pink slip. We do need to find new candidates who will pledge to be constitutionists, and stop voting for every bill that comes along. The system is broken, and can only be fixed with fresh faces with an unbiased agenda. Put a majority in office and start by reversing some of these idiotic stimulus plans.

I realize these are simplistic ideas, but you understand the principles involved. I feel the FED would never let some changes happen without mass economic chaos: in other words, they have the country by the shorthairs, and can do whatever they wish. Things have gone so far that the bottom must be reached before the climb out can begin. We are not yet at the bottom. The FED has some more pain in store for Americans.

Just follow this principal--vote all incumbants out--shake things up, no matter how much you love your represenative. start over. Only then can we put the fear of the vorte in these carpetbaggers.

the fed was created BECAUSE of massive economic failure...the booms and busts of the 1800's almost destroyed this country. and the great depression was caused by extreme wealth F'ing over the entire nation, because the weren't any laws and regulations controlling their greed that had been put in place yet.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

my response:

when have the wealthy ever done "labor"...they hire people for that, and in most cases, make enormous profits from "other peoples labor"

if all this "SEIZING" has been taking place, why do we have a record amount of millionaires and billionaires in this country???? and on top that an ever shrinking middle class and a growing poor class?? you suppose it's because of all those socialists programs?? yeah right...

[edit on 1-11-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by jimmyx]

Originally posted by jimmyx
maybe back 200 years ago, you might have had a go at it, but you cannot solve complex problems with simple slogans. you have to have people in government that not only look at solving an immediate problem, but also be able to look at the consequences that the action would create on the rest of the nation.
simple ideas expose simple minds.

And ironically, its been in the last 50 years of rapidly increasing government interference that the country has gone completely to hell in a handbasket.

The strength of this country has been and always will be its people. The more the government intrudes and attempts to legislate away the individuality and freedom of our citizens, the worse the situation will become. You're right, this isn't 1776. The world has changed and there has to be a happy medium, but the road we're traveling down right now certainly isn't it.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by vor78]

Originally posted by jimmyx
if all this "SEIZING" has been taking place, why do we have a record amount of millionaires and billionaires in this country???? and on top that an ever shrinking middle class and a growing poor class?? you suppose it's because of all those socialists programs?? yeah right...

Actually, yes, it IS because of all those socialist programs. The middle class and poor are being taxed into oblivion in order to pay for them. Take a single person scraping by on $20,000 yearly. First, they lose 7.7% right off the top to FICA, or $1,540. Then, they lose another $2,500 or so to Federal income taxes. Next up, the state takes another $500 (more depending on where you live) for income taxes. Then, if you're stupid enough to own a vehicle and a house, the state reams you for another $1,000 in property taxes, or as I like to call it, rent. So, we're down to $14,460...but now, you get to pay sales taxes on virtually all of that as you spend it, conservatively estimated at 8%, or another $1,200. So that single person making $20,000 yearly is left with only a little over $13,000 after the government gets through with him. And you want to sit there and tell me that the eeeevvvviiiillll corporations are the bad guy and that government is looking out for you???

Yeah right.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by vor78]

reply to post by Meesterjojo

if that's how the Teaparty folks want to be represented...by criminals and hypocrites who would destroy their own countrymen to support another country, meanwhile bemoaning issues here in the U.S.

Conflict much?

If you joined today just to post this, that's really sad.

Your "point" applies equally to the current administration as it might to some imaginary "Teaparty folks." Your disinformative intent is so obvious as to be laughable.

Take "Teaparty folks" out of the equation, and put in Obama supporters; then let's look at some of the various "czars" doing the administration's talking:

Browner (Socialst International), Holdren (forced redistribtion, eugenics and de-development), Emanuel (eugenics and forced abortion), Jones (marxism, race-centered development), Chu (Euro-style gasoline and energy prices), Sunstein (internet regulation and policing); and the list goes on.

Same threat, different (in this case, real) people.

You might've made a better "debut" by thinking through what you were about to post.

Or did you?

jw

reply to post by Janky Red


Saying that big business rips off the public is not exactly accurate. Big business can not force you to buy their products or services.

That Wall Street types got burned by their greed in buying government backed mortgage derivatives had a natural solution, bankruptcy. IMHO the federal government made a mistake in bailing the investment banks out. It is a mystery to me how stimulus spending on borrowed funds and taxation helps the economy. Big government is a burden on he people when it does these things.

As far a s conservatives core values, IMHO they are free market and limited government. However the body of laws passed by congress need to be applied, so modern Republicans execute that law even if they wish they could be turned back. An example would be social security and medicare. I wouldn't call Bush a conservative as he added drug benefits to medicare. His home ownership idealism along with congress's approval of it lead to financial disaster. IMHO Bush was preoccupied with war and let the economy slide, something conservatives don't want. That capital was diverted from normal free market use in to the housing bubble hurt everybody. I don't see how loaning someone who was not capable of repaying lots of money for an overpriced house helped the poor.

IMHO, libertarians share the core values, perhaps with more limited central government, and elimination of the FED. IMHO libertarians favor no or little foreign intervention.

Now Doug Hoffman doesn't seem like a scary conservative issue wise. Central to the traditional conservative theme is letting the free market pull us out of this depression and you do that by lowering government taxation and spending, not increasing it.

I like freedom, and it seems to me the government is in every aspect of our lives now, and basically I don't need government or not too much of it anyway. I understand those that feel government is the only solution to their problems, and I can only say to them at what cost to all of us?

The tea party movement says to me that a rollback in government is desired and the Eco Marxist ideology is not wanted. I'm surprised that the democratic party has swung as far left as it has, and this is the stimulus to the tea party movement.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by A52FWY]

Greetings Jenna.

Originally posted by Jenna
So did you read the article? Or did you see the words "tea party" and just automatically start doing your same song and dance?

I read the article itself and saw this thread involved both the NY race and the tea party movement that the OP decided to bring as well, and yes, from there I decided to go ahead with my regular song and dance.

Had you read the article you would have seen that it lists quite a few people who were not supporting this guy until they realized that the Republican they were backing likely won't win.

Hoffman is backed by one republican wing of the party, including Mrs Palin, and Scozzafava who dropped out was supported by the other wing of the Republican party. As far as I can see it, this is a battle of dominance over the republican party, not any move of the third parties.

And by the way Doug wanted to run as a republican until ofcourse he got shut out. The man had intention to promote any anti-two party movement, if he did he wouldnt have sought their nomination this year. But yes when he didnt get chosen, he turned third party. Likewise though his just another arm of the republican party.

is that the movement hasn't been hi-jacked but what is happening is that Palin, Gingrich, and the rest of the people mentioned in the article are trying to align themselves with the movement

Trying to align themselves? If Doug wanted to seperate himself from both parties he would have made it clear, and he wouldnt have been so set on seeking the republican nomination prior, yet likewise actions prove otherwise. His only running third party because it was the only option, and likewise folks are jumping on the bandwagon an hyping up. His just another wing of the republican party fighting for dominance come 2012.

Come now, SG. You jumped on MSNBC and CNN's "bash-the-tea-party" bandwagon

I wonder what would happen if the tea parties cut off their Fox news funds and support, and completely cut of its republican ties? How long would they last? A supposed anti-two party movement that depends on one of those parties for survival? That doesnt look very third party to me.

Jenna, what will you be saying to yourself regarding this movement following 2010 when its only the R's and the D's again in DC? Are you going to give yourself a pat on the back, "atleast they tried" talk? Are you going to blame "the powers to be" like some here? Or are you just going to come to the conclusion that this teaparty movement was another republican stealth campaign to help it get into DC again?

as soon as they started trying to minimize and ridicule it. It's blatantly obvious. Being covered by Fox isn't the same thing as being sponsored

Being covered by them is not. You are absolutley correct. Being promoted by them and sponsored by them is another thing, and thats what fox news did. The participation at Glenn Becks on 9/12 movement should have been blatantly obvious as well.

Then why do you do so much of it?

Actions speak louder than words. Hoffmans actons and his involvement with the republicans even following Obamas election win, and the fact he only moved over when he was rejected by the republicans themselves. The RINO's he chooses to align himself with. The tea party events are another story.

These state elections are a battle between the republican party wings and who gets control.... its not a move towards any third party.

Maybe people like you Jenna seek so desperately someone who is not running under the R's and the D's, and you'll take anything regardless of its associations. Im sorry for again trampling on that mission of yours.

If Hoffman was really a danger to the two party system, he wouldnt have RINO backers as it threatens their chances and influences.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I wonder what would happen if the tea parties cut off their Fox news funds and support, and completely cut of its republican ties? How long would they last? A supposed anti-two party movement that depends on one of those parties for survival? That doesnt look very third party to me.

Do you honestly believe that by repeating a lie often enough, people will start to believe it?

I just had a similar discussion with another member who cannot support his claims. but insists upon repeating the same trash.

TPM began without FOX and with the RNC. It was Ron Paul's fundraising effort before the 2008 elections.

It has grown and spread.

TPM does not "count on" FOX funding or "republican ties."

Prove it. You can not; so you will not.

Also, I am certain of this now. You are not the same person who posted under SG most recently.

Your spiel follows script; but your syntax, phrasing and word choice are markedly different.

We know you've gone through other incarnations, but either the late 2008/early 2009 author using the SG has had a stroke, or he's been retired.

You are a poor substitute.

Anyone else notice this?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Do you honestly believe that by repeating a lie often enough, people will start to believe it?

Who was behind the 912 movement J? Are you denying Foxes involvement in the tea parties? Are you saying they didnt hype up the movement? Are denying the fact that the republican mouthpieced media outlet played apart? Are you claiming that tea party members had issue with their participation considering their involvement in the "two party" conspiracy?

Does Palin and her minions support Hoffman or am I incorrect? Am I incorrect to have assumed that Hoffman accepted this support RINOs?

Did Hoffman seek the Republican nomination prior to seeking the third party one?

Are you saying the above are lies?

TPM began without FOX and with the RNC. It was Ron Paul's fundraising effort before the 2008 elections.

Yep, it started with Ron Pauler. I remember one such event back in 07'. After Obama was elected, the movement shot up in size. This movement had nothing to do with being anti-two party following Obama's win. Republicans and other conservatives united in their hatred for liberal policies. This is an anti-democrat movement, and nobody could care less about promoting any third party. If they did, there wouldnt be so many RINO's pulling the strings of these movements.

The folks who are pulling the strings behind this movement:
RINO dick army, former house speaker, leader of freedom works, another organisation of the tea parties.

RINO Palin, fully behind the movement.

Glenn beck rallying his own organised 912 tea party that was credited by tea party folks themselves.

Limbaugh, Hannity.... I could go on for a long time. This isnt a movement against the two party system. This is a battle for who gains the wheel of the Republican party who quiet frankly doesnt have anybody driving it at the moment.

So by all means participate in the Republican stealth campaign J. Just dont expect a third party to come out of it.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Greetings Jenna.

A belated greetings to you as well.

I read the article itself and saw this thread involved both the NY race and the tea party movement that the OP decided to bring as well, and yes, from there I decided to go ahead with my regular song and dance.

Did you notice the repeated mentions of people who were opposed to this guy until it started looking like he's going to win? Did you notice it was only then that they changed their tune's? That would be a huge clue that Gingrich and the rest are only supporting the person they think is going to win.

Hoffman is backed by one republican wing of the party, including Mrs Palin, and Scozzafava who dropped out was supported by the other wing of the Republican party. As far as I can see it, this is a battle of dominance over the republican party, not any move of the third parties.

I'm going to have to suggest that you go read the article again. Gingrich, Steele, the NRCC, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Akin, and Souder refused to back Hoffman until they realized that Hoffman is probably going to win. Then and only then did they decide to back him. That's not a battle of dominance, it's a last minute attempt to switch sides and stay in the people's good graces. Palin's endorsement I actually believe. A quick glance over Hoffman's stance on some issues shows that he and Palin have similar beliefs, so I believe she's endorsing him because of that.

Trying to align themselves? If Doug wanted to seperate himself from both parties he would have made it clear, and he wouldnt have been so set on seeking the republican nomination prior, yet likewise actions prove otherwise. His only running third party because it was the only option, and likewise folks are jumping on the bandwagon an hyping up. His just another wing of the republican party fighting for dominance come 2012.

Wow you didn't read my entire post. None of this has anything to do with what I was talking about when I said they were trying to align themselves with Hoffman because he's probably going to win.

I wonder what would happen if the tea parties cut off their Fox news funds and support, and completely cut of its republican ties? How long would they last? A supposed anti-two party movement that depends on one of those parties for survival? That doesnt look very third party to me.

The absence of your denial has been noted and will be taken as an admittance that you jumped on the MSM "bash-the-tea-party" bandwagon. On the bright side, it's nice to see you at least aren't denying it. Not quite the same as admitting it, but it'll do.

As for the completely irrelevant section above, which you know is irrelevant since it again has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted, I'll take the bait. The tea parties aren't funded by Fox, so there's nothing to cut off there. They aren't supported by Fox unless you have a twisted definition of "support" that says being covered by a news organization and that news organization promoting their coverage is support. I've checked my dictionary and I don't see that definition, but perhaps you have a different dictionary than I have.

Jenna, what will you be saying to yourself regarding this movement following 2010 when its only the R's and the D's again in DC? Are you going to give yourself a pat on the back, "atleast they tried" talk? Are you going to blame "the powers to be" like some here? Or are you just going to come to the conclusion that this teaparty movement was another republican stealth campaign to help it get into DC again?

I'll likely be saying the same thing I've been saying for at least the last 8 years. You and people like you who still believe in the two-party system went and voted down party lines yet again instead of paying attention to who exactly you all are voting for.

I have to wonder what exactly it is that you think is being accomplished by keeping everything the same with the same people in Congress making the same mistakes over and over and over again. It certainly isn't anything good.

Being promoted by them and sponsored by them is another thing, and thats what fox news did. The participation at Glenn Becks on 9/12 movement should have been blatantly obvious as well.

Ahh, but that's not what happened. Fox and Beck promoted their coverage of the tea parties. As I said in my last post, it was a smart business decision. During the tea parties they covered, they were the only ones who actually showed you a live feed. CNN and MSNBC did nothing but ridicule and dismiss the tea parties. Actually covering them without all the ridicule was a brilliant business move, and if you bother to check the ratings, Fox blows CNN and MSNBC away. That in itself should tell you something.

Actions speak louder than words.

And yours are telling me that rather than focus on the topic of the article, you'd rather once again do everything you can to bash what you don't agree with.

Maybe people like you Jenna seek so desperately someone who is not running under the R's and the D's, and you'll take anything regardless of its associations. Im sorry for again trampling on that mission of yours.

Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees. It's not about desperately seeking someone who isn't a Republican or a Democrat. It's about wanting to fix the mess our government has gotten us in before it's completely irreversible. Electing the same people back into office isn't going to fix anything, it's only going to make things worse.

Hard as it may be for you to believe, not everyone goes by party affiliation. Some of us actually vote based on whether someone has the same stance on the issues we do and couldn't care less whether they have an R or a D after their name on the ballot.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Janky Red

 

American lefties are generally "Libertarian" and American Righties are generally "Authoritarian"

Are you serious? "lefties" are "Libertarian? You must be kidding. No one (credibly) even make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously.

Look at the Libertarian Party and its main tenets. These in no way come close to what is currently in power in America today. In fact, many are the OPPOSITE!

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
...

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
...

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

www.lp.org...

Did you come here to intentionally misinform or do you do it by accident?

Deny ignorance!

jw


[edit on 1-11-2009 by jdub297]

LOOK at the root of the word -

Socially Lefties are libertarian -

I don't see hippies carrying signs that say "bern the gays"

Or lobbying against medical marijuana usage

Or that religion should be apart of public institution

Or same sex marriage

Many righties are all about government being all up people business - unless it is about
God, Guns or Gays

You see if it boils down to the individual person I am completely hands off.

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. I also do NOT think any company is afforded the same rights as an individual. Just because something is monitized does not
always mean it should be protected if it creates detriment to society.

Also you might read the entry for libertarian in wiki and get a broader sense of the concept.



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

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

Reply to post by Janky Red

Invade you haven't noticed everyone in charge is all about jamming government up our rears. There's nothing "libertarian" about any authoritarian. Of which both the lefties and righties when superficially divided among their respective party affiliations are.

The US has been under authoritarian rule exclusively since about 1791. Which is why I suspect so few Americans have any concept of liberty at all let alone one that is not skewed as your appears to be.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

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

[edit on 11/1/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


I heard about it earlier and its hardly a surprise. Some have argued that she was further left than the Democrat. The national party gave her hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds about a week ago and she repays the favor by jumping ship and supporting Owens. Ol' Newt and his buddy Michael Steele have some explaining to do, it seems.

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

reply to post by vor78


You hit the nail on the head. The Republican party is backing the Democrats. Steele and all of the other fake conservatives are paying lip service. They are not backing the Conservative because they see the sharks in the water-US citizens, we have had it with the Two Party Snake.

It is so obvious they are trying to sink the movement.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Janky Red

 

Which is why I suspect so few Americans have any concept of liberty at all let alone one that is not skewed as your appears to be.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You also posted 1791- I think you should really recognize the societal and technological changes that have taken place since. Our world only resembles those days in that it looks the same from space and that people still are still bipedal.

I think the point of liberty is that it is free to be determined by each individual, yet you are ramming your notion down my throat.

???

Nothing libertarian about Authoritarian - I would say yes...

Reply to post by Janky Red

So you believe liberty is relative? Not just relative but easily redefined by pervailing 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.

Really, I'm ramming something down your throat? Baffling.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com


[edit on 1-11-2009 by thisguyrighthere]