The conservative crackup:

[Common]

Its a long article I found interesting.


How a major, diverse political party became so dependent on the Tea Party's narrow range of strident voices
In a recent article, I argued (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_tea_partys_paranoid_aesthetic/) that the Republican Party has been captured by a faction whose political psychology makes it highly intransigent and uninterested in compromise. That article focused on the roots of this psychology and how it shapes the Tea Party’s view of its place in American politics. It did not pursue the question of exactly how this capture took place — of how a major political party, once a broad coalition of diverse elements, came to be so dependent on a narrow range of strident voices. This is the question I propose to explore below.


http://www.salon.com/2013/08/31/the_conservative_crackup_how_the_republican_party_ lost_its_mind/

[Peter1469]

I think that the Tea Party(ies) are a natural reaction to the failing status quo. Just as OWS is for the left.

Both groups realize that the mainstream of both parties are corrupt and are advocating policies that may very well crash the USD.

[Chris]

The Tea Parties are trivial but they've split Republicans? How can this be?

And what has this to do with, common, with conservatism?

[Matty]

I can't imagine why taxed Enough already scares the shit out of a liberal can you?

[patrickt]

The Tea Party isn't splitting the Republican Party. The Republican Party is splitting. And, only a flaming left-wing liberal would consider the Republican party conservative or the Democrat party democratic.

[Mainecoons]

Is Common trying again to "reform" the Republican Party so that it rolls over for the Democrats even faster?

How many of these stupid threads have you started now, Common? Twenty? Thirty? I'm losing count.

Dumb. Very dumb.

:grin:

[Singularity]

The Tea Party isn't splitting the Republican Party. The Republican Party is splittingSemantics. The problem confronting today's GOP is the same. Our political system,
unlike, for example, Israel's, does not support any more than two major parties.

The UK's similar system of elections allows for a third party to obtain success through
coalition politics, but the key differences in actual government structure make that
highly unlikely here. If one of the two "big tent" parties fractures for any reason,
winning the Presidency becomes next to impossible for any of the factions and they're
collectively going to be at a serious disadvantage in the Senate.

For the Tea Party(ies) as it (they) exist today, unless they're just content to permanently
monkey the course of a long-term Democratic government, they've gotta compromise.

[Peter1469]

Is Common trying again to "reform" the Republican Party so that it rolls over for the Democrats even faster?

How many of these stupid threads have you started now, Common? Twenty? Thirty? I'm losing count.

Dumb. Very dumb.

:grin:

Let's lay off the personal attacks.

[Mainecoons]

That's not a personal attack. That is a direct observation on the number of these dumb threads Common starts where he, the flaming leftist, tells the Republicans why they should be leftist too.

The threads are stupid, I stand by that assessment.

As for his person, I think his posting provides sufficient information for evaluation.

[Common]

You offer NOTHING here nothing but wild rants and meaningless political hackery. Your posts are all right wing flamer troll posts void of any meaningful facts you contribute nothing to the conversation here but repeated attempts to belittle anyone that you dont agree with politically.
Youre a trivial insignificant miserably unhappy man and normally not worth the time respond to. In person my response to you would be much different.

[Mainecoons]

Yeah, all those references I post are nothing.

Guess what genius, Republicans and/or conservatives are really not interested in your constantly repeated views about how, if only, we became liberals, everyone would love us.

Find something else to whine about, would you?

[Common]

Not smart enough to figure out that I could care less what you like :grin:. Pay attention now listen close. You cant bait me, youre not important, your constant troll posts are meaningless. I dont care what you like, dont care about you, dont care if you dropdead behind your screen worrying about what I post, now go away insignificant little troll..../ignore

:slap:

[Chris]

Not smart enough to figure out that I could care less what you like :grin:. Pay attention now listen close. You cant bait me, youre not important, your constant troll posts are meaningless. I dont care what you like, dont care about you, dont care if you dropdead behind your screen worrying about what I post, now go away insignificant little troll..../ignore

:slap:



Here we go again, common going off the deep end again, like he did with me not all that long ago.

[Ravi]

Its a long article I found interesting.


How a major, diverse political party became so dependent on the Tea Party's narrow range of strident voices


In a recent article, I argued (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_tea_partys_paranoid_aesthetic/) that the Republican Party has been captured by a faction whose political psychology makes it highly intransigent and uninterested in compromise. That article focused on the roots of this psychology and how it shapes the Tea Party’s view of its place in American politics. It did not pursue the question of exactly how this capture took place — of how a major political party, once a broad coalition of diverse elements, came to be so dependent on a narrow range of strident voices. This is the question I propose to explore below.


http://www.salon.com/2013/08/31/the_conservative_crackup_how_the_republican_party_ lost_its_mind/
In reality they are just a new manifestation of the religious right without the pretense that they believe all are created equal.

[Matty]

Not smart enough to figure out that I could care less what you like :grin:. Pay attention now listen close. You cant bait me, youre not important, your constant troll posts are meaningless. I dont care what you like, dont care about you, dont care if you dropdead behind your screen worrying about what I post, now go away insignificant little troll..../ignore

:slap:






ohhhh wwwwaaaaa waaaaaa wuss, don't start something you cannot finish!

[Matty]

You offer NOTHING here nothing but wild rants and meaningless political hackery. Your posts are all right wing flamer troll posts void of any meaningful facts you contribute nothing to the conversation here but repeated attempts to belittle anyone that you dont agree with politically.
Youre a trivial insignificant miserably unhappy man and normally not worth the time respond to. In person my response to you would be much different.



​now this is a personal attack where bee the warning?

[Chris]

In reality they are just a new manifestation of the religious right without the pretense that they believe all are created equal.



Malarkey, marie, the tea parties, while they represent a wide array of values, including religious, have set those special interested aside and come together united under a few simple principles, less takes, smaller government and more liberty. Yo can make up nonsense straw men all day long, but expect to be corrected on it.

[Mister D]

How does Marie come up with these bizarre associations? :huh:

[Agravan]

How does Marie come up with these bizarre associations? :huh:
Every time she bangs her head against the wall she gets a new idea. She must bang her head against the wall quite often.

[zelmo1234]

​now this is a personal attack where bee the warning?

Personal attacks can only be done by conservatives? Liberals get a pass!

Because they have nothing else left, everything they support is failing

[Common]

ohhhh wwwwaaaaa waaaaaa wuss, don't start something you cannot finish!

I didnt start anything and I can finish anything I do start pussums

[Common]

Anything else that right wing dingalings want to say while they can hide behind a screen:bananabutt::bananabutt::bananabutt: :grin::grin:

[Common]

ohhhh wwwwaaaaa waaaaaa wuss, don't start something you cannot finish!

Got it wrong THE above is a personal attack pussums :pointlaugh::pointlaugh:

[Singularity]

In reality they are just a new manifestation of the religious right without the pretense that they believe all are created equal.A crested faction of Libertarians who are interested in political success,
who have been partly hijacked by the already-established religious right,
that's for certain. We started with "Government isn't the solution to our
problems, government is the problem" and added "unless your problem
pertains to your health, your bedroom, or your faith."

[Singularity]

Personal attacks can only be done by conservatives? Liberals get a pass!
That seems unlikely. The moderator who beareth the message is of a conservative persuasion.

Speaking from extended experience, forum moderation is not an orderly or predictable process.

[Chris]

A crested faction of Libertarians who are interested in political success,
who have been partly hijacked by the already-established religious right,
that's for certain. We started with "Government isn't the solution to our
problems, government is the problem" and added "unless your problem
pertains to your health, your bedroom, or your faith."



Again, that's journalism? It's not Libertarian, that's a political party, it's libertarian, a movement. A journalist should know what words mean. And libertarians are against government "unless your problem pertains to your health, your bedroom, or your faith." Where do you come up with such nonsense, and why do you pretend to quote?

[Ravi]

A crested faction of Libertarians who are interested in political success,
who have been partly hijacked by the already-established religious right,
that's for certain. We started with "Government isn't the solution to our
problems, government is the problem" and added "unless your problem
pertains to your health, your bedroom, or your faith."
To be fair the movement was started by the crackpot and bigot Ron Paul so it only a matter of time before it was overtaken by fundies.

[GrassrootsConservative]

To be fair the movement was started by the crackpot and bigot Ron Paul so it only a matter of time before it was overtaken by fundies.

Please provide proof of Ron Paul being a bigot and crackpot.

[Ransom]

In reality they are just a new manifestation of the religious right without the pretense that they believe all are created equal.

Thats what you've been told and of course you believe it.

Baaaaa on Marie

:moron:

[jillian]

Please provide proof of Ron Paul being a bigot and crackpot.

someone who says he'd vote against the civil rights law?

how about you start there?

mmmmkay?

she's entitled to her opinion of the guy... as am i.

it really doesn't matter if it makes you pout

[jillian]

Thats what you've been told and of course you believe it.

Baaaaa on Marie

:moron:

*yawn*

[Matty]

Anything else that right wing dingalings want to say while they can hide behind a screen:bananabutt::bananabutt::bananabutt: :grin::grin:


Aren't you behind a screen running your mouth off like diarrhea? What makes you think anyone gives a shit what you think either? Get a clue!

[Matty]

Please provide proof of Ron Paul being a bigot and crackpot.



she spelled it wrong, she meant o b a m a

[jillian]

she spelled it wrong, she meant o b a m a

no.

[Singularity]

To be fair the movement was started by the crackpot and bigot Ron Paul so it only a matter of time before it was overtaken by fundies.I would say that Ron Paul is a spiritual founder of the Tea Party, not an actual one in any real respect. If any one person deserves recognition as a founder of the Tea Party as it exists today, I would say that on the political side it is Dick Armey.

He took an amalgamation of activists who otherwise would have
most identified with the Libertarian Party, where there was not inconsiderable frustration with both of today's "big tents," and
crafted a partisan political force on many levels.

He largely cultivated the "Take our country back" mentality -- the notion that under G.W. Bush and, more importantly, a Republican-dominated Congress, America had been just fine, and had only begun to suffer the doldrums of recession and misdirection under Democratic rule.

At least for the 2010 election period, it was nothing less than a stroke of political genius.

The other "founders" of the Tea Party, such as they exist, are the Koch brothers. They and their amalgamation of similarly minded rich guys with boundless resources and too much free time are the money.

The "movement" may still be largely decentralized and regionalized, but a whole lot of cash flows, as it long has, from one source. Where they don't have a piece, the Kochs have a finger in the pie. Citizens United is their baby.

As for Paul, he's been around for decades and has held consistent to his views of limited government in all respects (even if he does have some of the faults you alluded to) throughout. I might differ from those views by a significant margin, but I do respect them.

What's more, Paul has consistently campaigned for a simple truth that few others in his party even now really take seriously. That's the notion that young voters are the future and if they are not pulled into the Republican alignment today, the long-term future of the party is bleak.

While his son has spoken along similar lines, it's him that I have problems with, because Rand has fallen into the old Washington game and has even on more than one occasion married himself to social-conservative idiocy just to shore up his power base.

[Matty]

​hey libtards, the best, easiest, quickest way to do away with your enemy the dreaded tea party is to have EVERYONE in AMERICA pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX. In so doing you negate any reason for the T E A party to exist. Happy Labor day!

[Singularity]

​hey libtards, the best, easiest, quickest way to do away with your enemy the dreaded tea party is to have EVERYONE in AMERICA pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX. In so doing you negate any reason for the T E A party to exist. Happy Labor day!
This is a notion I never can wrap my head around, that when all's said, Democrats consider the Tea Party to be their greatest adversary and gravest political threat. Maybe, maybe that was true in the aftermath of 2010 ... Democrats largely dismissed the TP before that wave election, much as they did Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, and it cost them.

Even then, though, a fairly obvious truth was manifest: The Tea Parties all together are a flaw in the Republican structure. The fact of the matter is, Tea Party primary challenges are the main if not sole reason why Republicans failed to take the Senate in 2010 or make gains in 2012.

The House of Representatives aside, every Republican strategist in the country with any sense dreads a Tea Party-fueled primary challenge. With a couple of exceptions, Mark Bevin in Kentucky is the first true case where a TP primary challenge looks to serve Republican interests.

Until now, it's been a matter of breaking even, or a noted disadvantage as an inexperienced, undisciplined Tea Partier has detonated an otherwise sure Republican effort. And that's largely only because Mitch McConnell is such a flawed candidate that virtually anyone with any sense would be better in his place.

Yet I never stop hearing how much Democrats fear the Tea Party. It's the greatest political confidence game of the era.

[Mainecoons]

There's no point in Republicrats winning anything. It just distracts people from understanding that the decline of America is being driven by progressive ideas and progressive polices which said Republicrats roll over for.

Much better for the responsibility to be where it belongs, not diluted or shared by people who should be registered as and running as Democrats.

Like Chris Christie, for example, Or Mitt Romney, or John McCain.

Why settle for Democrat lite when you can have the real thing. If this is what Americans really want, they should have it and also get to have more of the same failure that goes with it. Without any distraction or dilution.

As for Democrats fearing the TP, you don't have to look further than this board to see that. You all are obsessed by it. I haven't seen such fear from you since Reagan.

[jillian]

​hey libtards, the best, easiest, quickest way to do away with your enemy the dreaded tea party is to have EVERYONE in AMERICA pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX. In so doing you negate any reason for the T E A party to exist. Happy Labor day!

you mean as opposed to the black guy in the office being the reason for its creation?

lmao

but i'm all for the top 1% paying their fair share of taxes.

[Mainecoons]

Half black guy. :rofl:

[Chris]

To be fair the movement was started by the crackpot and bigot Ron Paul so it only a matter of time before it was overtaken by fundies.



My but you're good at making up and calling names. No depth, but great name calling.

Ron Paul did not start the Tea Parties BTW. Santelli is credited with starting it ans naming it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k

[Chris]

someone who says he'd vote against the civil rights law?

how about you start there?

mmmmkay?

she's entitled to her opinion of the guy... as am i.

it really doesn't matter if it makes you pout



That's nothing but truthiness to say either Paul would vote against the civil rights law, especiallt when it was Democrats who filibustered and voted against it.



Everyone's got an opinion. But what is the value of an opinion that's mere name calling? Or an opinion based on misrepresentation like yours?

[Chris]

I would say that Ron Paul is a spiritual founder of the Tea Party, not an actual one in any real respect. If any one person deserves recognition as a founder of the Tea Party as it exists today, I would say that on the political side it is Dick Armey.

He took an amalgamation of activists who otherwise would have
most identified with the Libertarian Party, where there was not inconsiderable frustration with both of today's "big tents," and
crafted a partisan political force on many levels.

He largely cultivated the "Take our country back" mentality -- the notion that under G.W. Bush and, more importantly, a Republican-dominated Congress, America had been just fine, and had only begun to suffer the doldrums of recession and misdirection under Democratic rule.

At least for the 2010 election period, it was nothing less than a stroke of political genius.

The other "founders" of the Tea Party, such as they exist, are the Koch brothers. They and their amalgamation of similarly minded rich guys with boundless resources and too much free time are the money.

The "movement" may still be largely decentralized and regionalized, but a whole lot of cash flows, as it long has, from one source. Where they don't have a piece, the Kochs have a finger in the pie. Citizens United is their baby.

As for Paul, he's been around for decades and has held consistent to his views of limited government in all respects (even if he does have some of the faults you alluded to) throughout. I might differ from those views by a significant margin, but I do respect them.

What's more, Paul has consistently campaigned for a simple truth that few others in his party even now really take seriously. That's the notion that young voters are the future and if they are not pulled into the Republican alignment today, the long-term future of the party is bleak.

While his son has spoken along similar lines, it's him that I have problems with, because Rand has fallen into the old Washington game and has even on more than one occasion married himself to social-conservative idiocy just to shore up his power base.





Another one who repeats liberal propaganda about the Tea Parties. No, Paul did not start it nor did Armey nor are the Koch brothers nor are they a major source of funding decentralized, leaderless Tea parties.


All those parentheticals and subordinate asides leave your prose confused, as if you don't have a good clear idea what you're saying, which is true when it comes to the Tea Parties.

[Chris]

This is a notion I never can wrap my head around, that when all's said, Democrats consider the Tea Party to be their greatest adversary and gravest political threat. Maybe, maybe that was true in the aftermath of 2010 ... Democrats largely dismissed the TP before that wave election, much as they did Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, and it cost them.

Even then, though, a fairly obvious truth was manifest: The Tea Parties all together are a flaw in the Republican structure. The fact of the matter is, Tea Party primary challenges are the main if not sole reason why Republicans failed to take the Senate in 2010 or make gains in 2012.

The House of Representatives aside, every Republican strategist in the country with any sense dreads a Tea Party-fueled primary challenge. With a couple of exceptions, Mark Bevin in Kentucky is the first true case where a TP primary challenge looks to serve Republican interests.

Until now, it's been a matter of breaking even, or a noted disadvantage as an inexperienced, undisciplined Tea Partier has detonated an otherwise sure Republican effort. And that's largely only because Mitch McConnell is such a flawed candidate that virtually anyone with any sense would be better in his place.

Yet I never stop hearing how much Democrats fear the Tea Party. It's the greatest political confidence game of the era.




This is a notion I never can wrap my head around, that when all's said, Democrats consider the Tea Party to be their greatest adversary and gravest political threat.

Then why do you and paul and jillian and marie and common and other progressives continue to rant and rave about the Tea parties? It's really disingenuous to spend a thread doing that and then announce you're unconcerned.

[Chris]

you mean as opposed to the black guy in the office being the reason for its creation?

lmao

but i'm all for the top 1% paying their fair share of taxes.



The Tea parties did not arise because of Obama. Why do you perpetuate racist myths like that?


Define fair, if you can.

[Mainecoons]

I'll tell ya what, when it comes to enriching himself while in public office, ole Obammy is sure looking like one of those "white" blacks.

Not to mention all those lavish vacations while more and more Americans try to survive on McJobs and the one percent takes all income gains and then some since he was elected.

:rofl:

[Peter1469]

you mean as opposed to the black guy in the office being the reason for its creation?

lmao

but i'm all for the top 1% paying their fair share of taxes.

The top 1% already pay 36 percent of taxes (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html). How much more do you want them to pay?

[Singularity]

The top 1% already pay 36 percent of taxes (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html). How much more do you want them to pay?
I honestly don't know what the solution is. I don't begin to understand the ins and outs of the tax code and I will not pretend that I do. However, something needs to be done about this country's widening income gap. As a market liberal, I'm highly skeptical of actual redistribution of wealth.

I never have and never will buy into the line that says "tax these people more because they have too much money." The needs of the country are too complex to apply a blanket solution like that. Even so, it's a plain fact that the top tier of wealth once paid much, much higher rates than they do today. That many of them have committed tax evasion in fact if not in law by stowing wealth abroad. There is some cause for progressive reform.

I don't really trust Washington to do it right, though.

[Chris]

I honestly don't know what the solution is. I don't begin to understand the ins and outs of the tax code and I will not pretend that I do. However, something needs to be done about this country's widening income gap. As a market liberal, I'm highly skeptical of actual redistribution of wealth ... I never have and never will buy into the line that says "tax these people more because they have too much money." The needs of the country are too complex to apply a blanket solution like that. Even so, it's a plain fact that the top tier of wealth once paid much, much higher rates than they do today. That many of them have committed tax evasion in fact if not in law by stowing wealth abroad. There is some cause for progressive reform.




I honestly don't know what the solution is. I don't begin to understand the ins and outs of the tax code and I will not pretend that I do. However, something needs to be done about this country's widening income gap.

Of course you do not know, yet you will argument from unknowns that something, anything must be done.

That more than anything defines the modern liberal mind.



As a market liberal, I'm highly skeptical of actual redistribution of wealth....

As a socialist you mean you don't trust the free market but demand government redistribute wealth. Little do you know that this demand results largely in the redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest to maintain their status quo. Even social welfare ends up in the hands of the wealthiest, for the social welfare is not saved and invested to the benefit of those who receive it but is immediately spent on goods and services provided in most cases by the wealthiest of corporations. Ditto progressive protectionist schemes to keep imports out and American corporations rich.



That many of them have committed tax evasion in fact if not in law by stowing wealth abroad.

This awkward and syntactically malformed sentence displays another fact you do not know, namely that corporations don't pay taxes to begin with but just pass it on to consumers.



There is some cause for progressive reform.

Of course you do not know, yet you will argument from unknowns that something, anything must be done.

That more than anything defines the modern liberal mind.

[Mister D]

Of course you do not know, yet you will argument from unknowns that something, anything must be done.

That more than anything defines the modern liberal mind.






Well said. I immediately thought of gun control.

[Matty]

you mean as opposed to the black guy in the office being the reason for its creation?

lmao

but i'm all for the top 1% paying their fair share of taxes.







YOU don't hear well. I said. EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY AMERICAN SHOULD PAY INCOME TAX. THEN YOU WON"T NEED THE T E A PARTY!

[Agravan]

All jiilian and her ilk ever hear is "blah blah blah black blah blah blah Obama blah blah taxes". Those are the only words she understands in any conversation.

[Chris]

All jiilian and her ilk ever hear is "blah blah blah black blah blah blah Obama blah blah taxes". Those are the only words she understands in any conversation.


Even if that was all you said they'd hear "blah blah blah black blah blah blah Bush blah blah taxes".

[zelmo1234]

you mean as opposed to the black guy in the office being the reason for its creation?

lmao

but i'm all for the top 1% paying their fair share of taxes.

Just 2 questions?

#1 Why did the only Black Senator not receive an invitation to the MLK festivities?

#2 What do you thin the top 1% should pay as a percentage so they would consider to be paying their fair share?

[Agravan]

Just 2 questions?

#1 Why did the only Black Senator not receive an invitation to the MLK festivities?

#2 What do you thin the top 1% should pay as a percentage so they would consider to be paying their fair share?
1. because he is a conservative.
2. I think a 15% tax for EVERYONE, regardless of income, would be fair.

But that's just my opinion. god luck with getting jilly-girl to answer any of the tough questions with anything other than hyperbole.

[Singularity]

Just 2 questions?

#1 Why did the only Black Senator not receive an invitation to the MLK festivities?

#2 What do you thin the top 1% should pay as a percentage so they would consider to be paying their fair share?#1 probably has something to do with the fact that Scott refuses to join the Congressional Black Caucus, and has made a point about thumbing his nose over it. While I don't think it would be necessary for that to be said out loud, "I don't like Democrats" is a flatly invalid reason for not joining. If anything, Scott should join the caucus to provide the dissenting voice, as a form of ranking member. Instead he's decided to just act like a dick.

As for the MLK festivities: Invitations were sent to many prominent Republicans, and none showed. Bill O'Reilly had to eat some serious crow after he initially speculated that it was designed to be a partisan event.

#2, for myself, more than the Capital Gains rate most of them pay, which is less than the lowest income tax bracket even though people making their income through capital gains generally delegate the work of this process to experts -- money is begetting money for no other reason than that -- and it far, far exceeds even most people in the upper brackets.

I'd personally support a flat consumption tax on anyone who makes more than 90 percent of their annual take-home pay through Capital Gains. An average of all state consumption/sales tax rates ought to be fair.

[Mainecoons]

#1 confirms that this was a Democrat event, not really about MLK. Gosh, what a surprise to see this kind of behavior from Democrats.

O'Reilley didn't eat anything. It was a partisan event.

Minimum capital gains rate is 15 percent. Minimum income tax rate is zero.

Don't confuse depreciation, which is tax deferral, with capital gains. Depreciation delays paying taxes unless the asset actually depreciates. Many do. Such as plant equipment, oil and gas depletion (the wells eventually always go dry), that sort of thing. I have some real estate that has actually depreciated several million dollars. That used to be pretty unusual, now with commercial property not so unusual. However, historically, it is usually sold for equal or more than paid.

One can defer taxes on the sale of commercial property using a Starker exchange. Again, it is a deferral, not an escape from taxes.

I concur, all income should be treated the same and taxed on some sort of flat rate basis without loopholes. That won't solve the problem, however, that government in America simply consumes too much of the national output and needs to be cut back. Government expense has far outstripped population growth. I'm not going to dig up the graph showing this, I think I've posted it since you arrived.

[Ravi]

I would say that Ron Paul is a spiritual founder of the Tea Party, not an actual one in any real respect. If any one person deserves recognition as a founder of the Tea Party as it exists today, I would say that on the political side it is Dick Armey.

He took an amalgamation of activists who otherwise would have
most identified with the Libertarian Party, where there was not inconsiderable frustration with both of today's "big tents," and
crafted a partisan political force on many levels.

He largely cultivated the "Take our country back" mentality -- the notion that under G.W. Bush and, more importantly, a Republican-dominated Congress, America had been just fine, and had only begun to suffer the doldrums of recession and misdirection under Democratic rule.

At least for the 2010 election period, it was nothing less than a stroke of political genius.

The other "founders" of the Tea Party, such as they exist, are the Koch brothers. They and their amalgamation of similarly minded rich guys with boundless resources and too much free time are the money.

The "movement" may still be largely decentralized and regionalized, but a whole lot of cash flows, as it long has, from one source. Where they don't have a piece, the Kochs have a finger in the pie. Citizens United is their baby.

As for Paul, he's been around for decades and has held consistent to his views of limited government in all respects (even if he does have some of the faults you alluded to) throughout. I might differ from those views by a significant margin, but I do respect them.

What's more, Paul has consistently campaigned for a simple truth that few others in his party even now really take seriously. That's the notion that young voters are the future and if they are not pulled into the Republican alignment today, the long-term future of the party is bleak.

While his son has spoken along similar lines, it's him that I have problems with, because Rand has fallen into the old Washington game and has even on more than one occasion married himself to social-conservative idiocy just to shore up his power base.


The genius, and the hypocrisy, of the teapees is that they didn't start complaining about big government until Obama was elected. They totally ignored Dubya's big government policies. Sadly, a lot of "sheeple" don't see that.

[Ravi]

YOU don't hear well. I said. EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY AMERICAN SHOULD PAY INCOME TAX. THEN YOU WON"T NEED THE T E A PARTY!

How much do you pay?

[Chris]

The genius, and the hypocrisy, of the teapees is that they didn't start complaining about big government until Obama was elected. They totally ignored Dubya's big government policies. Sadly, a lot of "sheeple" don't see that.



Again, the cute name calling and the made up nonsense. We've been complaining about government since before Bush. Sadly, it right, sheeple didn't see that, so they make things up.

[Mainecoons]

So you all are saying that Obama is the reason the TP was created. OK. I can buy that, given how extreme he is. It is called the straw that broke the camel's back.

And for you research challenged liberals, Libertarians have been raising hell about the size and cost of government for a long, long time. The TP is heavily populated with libertarians.

In any case, we should thank Obama for being such a wake up call that people finally started waking up.

Wait until they can't get health care because of the ObamaCare disaster. That will wake them up real good.

:grin:

[Matty]

How much do you pay?



I pay what I owe! How much do you pay?

[Ransom]

The genius, and the hypocrisy, of the teapees is that they didn't start complaining about big government until Obama was elected. They totally ignored Dubya's big government policies. Sadly, a lot of "sheeple" don't see that.

But you didn't, you cheered Bush's big government policies...why not give us some examples....

...f'n...watch this.....

[Cigar]

Is Common trying again to "reform" the Republican Party so that it rolls over for the Democrats even faster?

How many of these stupid threads have you started now, Common? Twenty? Thirty? I'm losing count.

Dumb. Very dumb.

:grin:

There's still Republicans ... so expect just a few more. :laugh:

[Common]

Personal attacks can only be done by conservatives? Liberals get a pass!

Because they have nothing else left, everything they support is failing

nonesense know what your talking about before you open your mouth, first of all willow tree made a personal attack on me when I never said a word to her, second I got a warning via pm.
You rightwingers on here are full of crap and full of sarcasm and constantly try to belittle others. your a pathetic group of weenies collectively and most of you would slither away man to man. Your intimidation tactics dont work with me. Most of you havent dropped your testicles yet.

[Adelaide]

WillowTree and Common have been banned from this thread.

I'd highly suggest no one else throw out a personal insult.

[zelmo1234]

nonesense know what your talking about before you open your mouth, first of all willow tree made a personal attack on me when I never said a word to her, second I got a warning via pm.
You rightwingers on here are full of crap and full of sarcasm and constantly try to belittle others. your a pathetic group of weenies collectively and most of you would slither away man to man. Your intimidation tactics dont work with me. Most of you havent dropped your testicles yet.

Oh! Now you have me scared just like Cigar does! I will likely not sleep tonight thinking about just how big and strong that you are.

You know I scare easy! You liberals are so big and strong!

But your post is void of any facts just more personal attacks and threats?

The facts are under the liberal polices the country has floundered, wages have eroded, the full time work week is under attack. Are the republicans blocking more of the same polices that did not work the first time. HELL yes and thank god I might add!

Thus you have no great success story of liberal polices only failure! What else do you have to turn to!

[Mainecoons]

Liberal Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

:grin:

[oceanloverOH]

This thread has degenerated past usefulness. I'm closing it for now.