Liberty?

Wonderful!

We have people posting declaring those who disagree them are the puppets of evil, rich manipulators. But fail to realize that they, too, are puppets of evil, rich manipulators.

Because a double face-palm doesn't properly address the issues of ignorance and stupidity.

oldsaw wrote: We have people posting declaring those who disagree them are the puppets of evil, rich manipulators. But fail to realize that they, too, are puppets of evil, rich manipulators.

Guess I missed that post. Where does anyone say anyone is a puppet of evil, rich manipulators, and where does anyone say they are not the puppets of evil rich manipulators?

I heard some things and have read some things. I posted a link to some things I have read. I clearly stated that I didn't know if it was true, but it was something that is being talked about. I didn't suggest that anyone who disagrees with me is... anything. I do wonder if there is more to the "tea party" than a grass roots movement. Sure got mighty big and powerful mighty fast. In my experience, that takes some dough. I didn't characterize anyone as evil, nor did the link I posted.

There's a spot on television right now. Bear in mind, the elections are over. This spot is all over the place- some politician (actor) promising to raise the debt and the crowd getting all disenchanted with him. Okay, good spot, good message. I work at a TV station- it ain't running on a Public Service schedule. It's on the cable nets, it's on the local stations in expensive avails. There's some cash behind this thing. I can tell you this for sure, they're not paying for it by passing around the hat at the Tea Party gatherings. Someone is footing the bill, and whoever it is has deep pockets.

That doesn't make them evil. That does make them rich, but there's nothing wrong with being rich. It only makes them manipulators if they are trying to manipulate someone. Manipulate typically means trying to influence someone in an unfair manner. This spot is pretty clear in it's intent. I don't think it's manipulation. Just clear communication. Shoot, I like it and hope the message gets through.

As for "anyone who disagrees with me", I'm not sure you'd even know if you disagreed with me. My feelings tend to be difficult to pidgin hole. I can almost guarantee that there would be a long list of things we agree on. Probably many we do not agree on as well. But that doesn't make you or anyone else someone "who disagrees with me". It makes us people talking about stuff.

So, you know, we can do without the accusations of ignorance and stupidity. I'm ignorant of many things, this is certain. I'd be a little curious about anyone who claims they aren't. But I'm not stupid. If I dug around long enough I could probably find several bits of paper that verify as much in at least a couple of reasonably objective ways.

Cone_Junky wrote: The Tea Party was started because the Republicans LOST and they just couldn't handle it. There was no way the American people would re-elect the idiots who put us in this mess, so they made up a new name and called themselves "grassroots". I pretty sure running thier own network isn't "grassroots".

Uhhhh, no. But since you're on a Kool-Aid bender, I probably can't convince you that you're mostly wrong on this.

I followed the Tea Party movement with great interest and went to a couple rallies when it first started. It was not partisan. It was not about electing GOP members. It was a desperate effort to get those in office to stop railroading us into things we didn't want and listen to the people. It was unsuccessful, but it did help a lot of us realize we weren't alone. Little local groups sprang up to try to keep momentum going and work on elections at the local level.

What DID happen was somehow the conservative right gained a foothold in the movement and convinced everyone that religious conservative Republicans were the only answer. Myself and some others lost interest in it at that point. I watched in dismay as it became something different. Not necessarily something bad, just something that didn't really represent my Independent/Libertarian viewpoints.

So, while the end result may be what you describe/loathe you are incorrect in it's roots. It was hijacked, and did become the Republican alternative. They managed to elect some people outside the GOP's Chosen Ones (which I applaud) but they are generally hopelessly far right, which I don't think is the best solution to the problems we were/are facing.

ddavidv wrote: What DID happen was somehow the conservative right gained a foothold in the movement and convinced everyone that religious conservative Republicans were the only answer. Myself and some others lost interest in it at that point. I watched in dismay as it became something different. Not necessarily something bad, just something that didn't really represent my Independent/Libertarian viewpoints.

Thats what happened. To win you need big amounts of money to combat the other guys big amounts of money. We need some good campaign finance reform that apply's to all.

The more people and less corporations/out of state influences, you have in any given election, the better it will work.

ddavidv wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: The Tea Party was started because the Republicans LOST and they just couldn't handle it. There was no way the American people would re-elect the idiots who put us in this mess, so they made up a new name and called themselves "grassroots". I pretty sure running thier own network isn't "grassroots".

Uhhhh, no. But since you're on a Kool-Aid bender, I probably can't convince you that you're mostly wrong on this. I followed the Tea Party movement with great interest and went to a couple rallies when it first started. It was not partisan. It was not about electing GOP members. It was a desperate effort to get those in office to stop railroading us into things we didn't want and listen to the people. It was unsuccessful, but it did help a lot of us realize we weren't alone. Little local groups sprang up to try to keep momentum going and work on elections at the local level. What DID happen was somehow the conservative right gained a foothold in the movement and convinced everyone that religious conservative Republicans were the only answer. Myself and some others lost interest in it at that point. I watched in dismay as it became something different. Not necessarily something bad, just something that didn't really represent my Independent/Libertarian viewpoints. So, while the end result may be what you describe/loathe you are incorrect in it's roots. It was hijacked, and did become the Republican alternative. They managed to elect some people outside the GOP's Chosen Ones (which I applaud) but they are generally hopelessly far right, which I don't think is the best solution to the problems we were/are facing.

DING DING DING!

Cone_Junky wrote: Unfortunately I know too much of what the Tea Party "is about" (exact same dribble we've heard for 8 berkeleying years) because they won't STFU. Except as usual, it's all talking points with no substance. The Tea Party was started because the Republicans LOST and they just couldn't handle it. There was no way the American people would re-elect the idiots who put us in this mess, so they made up a new name and called themselves "grassroots". I pretty sure running thier own network isn't "grassroots". The same party that started the Tea Baggers is the same party that called us Anti-American just a few years ago. Flip-flopping douchebags...

You are full of it. Stop talking now.

ignorant wrote:

ddavidv wrote: What DID happen was somehow the conservative right gained a foothold in the movement and convinced everyone that religious conservative Republicans were the only answer. Myself and some others lost interest in it at that point. I watched in dismay as it became something different. Not necessarily something bad, just something that didn't really represent my Independent/Libertarian viewpoints.

To win you need big amounts of money to combat the other guys big amounts of money. We need some good campaign finance reform that apply's to all. The more people and less corporations/out of state influences, you have in any given election, the better it will work.

Expand your proposed limitations to include unions and I'm with you 110%............

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote:

ddavidv wrote: What DID happen was somehow the conservative right gained a foothold in the movement and convinced everyone that religious conservative Republicans were the only answer. Myself and some others lost interest in it at that point. I watched in dismay as it became something different. Not necessarily something bad, just something that didn't really represent my Independent/Libertarian viewpoints.

To win you need big amounts of money to combat the other guys big amounts of money. We need some good campaign finance reform that apply's to all. The more people and less corporations/out of state influences, you have in any given election, the better it will work.

Expand your proposed limitations to include unions and I'm with you 110%............

corporations/groups/whatever... all should stay out.

to be honest, I see a union or RNC/DNC as a corporation.

MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?

The wheel base is a little too short for me...

ignorant wrote: We need some good campaign finance reform that applies to all. The more people and less corporations/out of state influences, you have in any given election, the better it will work.

You and I may not agree on much, but on this point we are in perfect agreement!

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote: We need some good campaign finance reform that applies to all. The more people and less corporations/out of state influences, you have in any given election, the better it will work.

You and I may not agree on much, but on this point we are in perfect agreement!

Everyone agrees on it. That is how you know you the people are not in the position of power they think they are. They are not able to influence the government on something that is pretty universally thought of as a bad idea.

Strizzo wrote:

MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?

YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans

My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.

Monster Toad wrote:

Strizzo wrote:

MCarp22 wrote: So Liberty. 3.7 or CRD as a tow vehicle for a miata + aluminum trailer?

YES. would have looked harder for one if they were available with a manual trans

My wife's 2005 Liberty Sport 3.7 has a 6 speed manual trans.

I want an XJ with the CRD swap and a transmission that can handle the torque. Now THAT would be awesome...

bravenrace wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Unfortunately I know too much of what the Tea Party "is about" (exact same dribble we've heard for 8 berkeleying years) because they won't STFU. Except as usual, it's all talking points with no substance. The Tea Party was started because the Republicans LOST and they just couldn't handle it. There was no way the American people would re-elect the idiots who put us in this mess, so they made up a new name and called themselves "grassroots". I pretty sure running thier own network isn't "grassroots". The same party that started the Tea Baggers is the same party that called us Anti-American just a few years ago. Flip-flopping douchebags...

You are full of it. Stop talking now.

Doesn't matter how the Baggers started, what matters is what they are now. Faux news took over the cause and now it's just the extreme right arm of the extreme right. Good for you! Go to teaparty dot org. Where is the message? Go to thier "about" page. It's two paragraphs that outline nothing. It's all the same topics as GOP dot com. Imagine that? Good thing is that it has started some real entertaining in-fighting. Being that the kool-aid flows heavily in the GOP the Democrats have not been able to defeat them. It takes some real organization and lack of ethics to take the stands that the Republicans have taken in Senate/Congress. Most of them probably supported some of Obama's agenda. But as a party they stood strong togetther. Unfortunately the Democrats are intelligent, free-thinkers, so they aren't willing to stand on party lines just to take down the other side. I think we need to start brewing our own Kool-aid. Are you guys willing to share the recipe?

I refuse to play along with your egos anymore. Pretending that your any different then the party you support. Who spouts about the tea Party the most...Republicans. Who's ticket are they running on...Republicans. What network glorifies thier cause...the Republican Network (Fox News). Call a spade a spade. If the Party believed in TRUE Liberty they would be a Libertarian. Nope, just another Republican with even more hateful picket signs.

Oh yeah, the formation of the Tea Party also means that Sarah Palin will be running on the GOP ticket. You couldn't hand us a sweeter election in 2012. Good luck with that

wow. i guess we should just believe you because you state it as fact and say it with such passion. my simple mind is convinced by your strong words.

In reply to Strizzo:

Ronald Reagan said it best:

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

wow, just... wow

Anyway, Im GASP with Iggs on this one...Campaign finance reform would VASTLY restructure our political landscape. But I think we need to take it a step further with enacting stricter term limits as well as conflict of interest criteria, i.e. YOU CANNOT BE A CONGRESSMAN/SENATOR IF YOURE ALSO ON THE PAYROLL/BOARD/MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER AT A MULTI-STATE BANK/FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

There's a lotta love here, man.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Ronald Reagan said it best: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

The great GOP Messiah...

But nobody discredited the fact that the Baggers are just the GOP. There is no talk in the Tea party about the Patriot Act or any of the other couple dozen instances where the GOP infringed on Liberties. It is pushing the Republican agenda. No more...no less. Money = liberty How did that work out for Madoff? His bank account is pretty big, but how are those liberties working out for him?

Listen man, Im as middle of the road as they come, and even I am not too sure that youre putting words together in any particular order based on real cognitive thought, or if your just mashing the keyboard at random and your posts are what comes out of it.

How did Madoff end up in this discussion? What about Octomom? I bet shes a pinko commie or maybe a babykilling conservative or perhaps a martian!

In reply to Cone_Junky:

actually, someone did explain to you the tea party, and you called him stupid and went on another rant.

Cone_Junky wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Ronald Reagan said it best: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

The great GOP Messiah... But nobody discredited the fact that the Baggers are just the GOP. There is no talk in the Tea party about the Patriot Act or any of the other couple dozen instances where the GOP infringed on Liberties. It is pushing the Republican agenda. No more...no less. Money = liberty How did that work out for Madoff? His bank account is pretty big, but how are those liberties working out for him?

You may be interested to know that, according to wikipedia, Madoff "gave over $230,000 to political causes since 1991, with the bulk (88%) going to the Democratic Party, and 12% to the Republican Party."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA

and there's plenty of blame to go around when we're talking about screwing the country up. if all you want to do is say "so and so did this and its all their fault so we should just get rid of all of them, because they're the only thing wrong with america and these other people never did anything wrong, vote for them"

its going to be a non-starter, because you can't just go and say THAT party is at fault, blame them. its simply not true.

Madoff was used as a reference to monetary gain. All arguements about liberty by the Tea Party (on this board) has been in direct relation to money. So Madoff is a great example of how you can't have too much money (liberty). We took his "liberty" away from him and put him in jail.

Here is the explanation of the Tea Party according to THIER official site-

"The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America.

From our founding, the Tea Party is the voice of the true owners of the United States, WE THE PEOPLE.

Many claim to be the founders of this movement — however, it was the brave souls of the men and women in 1773, known today as the Boston Tea Party, who dared defy the greatest military might on earth.

We are the beneficiaries of their courage. By joining the Tea Party, you are taking a stand for our nation. You will be upholding the grand principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights."

Where are there any specifics stands on any issue? It's just an idea that can be translated to fit whatever arguement the GOP wants to take a stand on and it changes daily. The Tea Party is just a tool of the Republican Party.

And we're the nut jobs - http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/11/03/read-the-tea-party-childrens-book-about-how-obama-stole-christmas-no-really

Go to the GOP's official site and you see hate, fear, and the pushing of partisanship.

Go to the Tea Party official site and you see hate, fear, and the pushing of partisanship.

Go to the Dems offiical site and you see hope, encouragement, and supporting your community.

But as the last election proved, it's easier to push hate then it is to push hope.