Tea Partiers: Libertarians v. Social Conservatives

southsiderosie

Politico just conducted an exit poll at the Tea Party tax rally, and it really highlighted some of the differences within the Tea Party movement, and how they differ from Republicans at large:

Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The survey, an exit poll conducted Thursday by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”

The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent....

...Paul performed best among those who don’t think government should promote any particular set of values, but Palin dominated among the family values set. Of Palin voters, 59 percent said they were either very or extremely angry about same-sex marriage. Among Paul voters, the number was 34 percent. Half of Palin’s tea party supporters attend weekly religious services; a quarter of Paul voters do.

Among the respondents, the two prominent figureheads polarize. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said they would not even consider voting for Palin if she ran for president in 2012; 59 percent said the same thing of Paul....

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35988_Page2.html#ixzz0lZWN7b30

I think the fact that as a practical matter (i.e. 2-party, first past the post system) libertarians are wedded to social conservatives through the Republican party means that a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their aims would never be comfortable voting for them. And the fringe of the Tea Party movement scares the **** out of me. That said, I don't think either Palin or Paul will lead the GOP presidential ticket in 2012.

Amerika

I see the media continues to try and put labels on us (I went to one of the local rallies last year and I continue to defend them, so I guess that makes me one of them). It’s just a loose movement for the most part, as has been my observation. A just go do your thing when you get the chance to, for many of us. A lot of good natured fellowship. Although quite diverse in their positions, each individual who is drawn to the Tea Party seems to have a common thread that links them together. That they are against big government and excessive government spending.
Here is a good article from a Washington Post reporter nonetheless, which depicts the Tea Party members in probably the closest light to actual fact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702652.html


I think this is what really scares most about the Tea Party.

Eliot Rosewater

I don't really understand how you could be against big government, yet for government legislating for the enforcing of "traditional values" upon the whole population.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FatherTed

The problem I have with the Tea Party is that America's problems did not begin with Obama. Where were they during the Bush years? Why come out of the wood work now going on about taxes etc when it's been the same taxes and before now just a bit higher?

Amerika

It did start during the Bush years, and a major part of the reason why the house, senate and presidency went to the Democrats. Wasted opportunity by the democratic party if November changes the landscape.

FatherTed

Amerika wrote: »

It did start during the Bush years, and a major part of the reason why the house, senate and presidency went to the Democrats. Wasted opportunity by the democratic party if November changes the landscape.

That's strange because I never saw them on Fox News until last year. I don't think anybody heard of the Tea Party until after Obama became President. When did you join up?

southsiderosie

FatherTed wrote: »

The problem I have with the Tea Party is that America's problems did not begin with Obama. Where were they during the Bush years? Why come out of the wood work now going on about taxes etc when it's been the same taxes and before now just a bit higher?

This is pretty much my beef with the libertarian tea partiers. Why weren't they outraged by 1) the enormous Medicare drug giveaway and 2) the general skewing of the nation's finances under Bush. Two unfunded wars?!?!?!

I can't take the social conservatives seriously because I think a lot of them are bible-thumping nutjobs. And I can't take the libertarian/small government wing of the movement seriously because they should have been protesting for the last several years, not just now. Unfortunately the movement seems to attract a fair number of people who seem like they rarely take their tin hats off long enough to leave the basement.

@ DF, I consider myself an independent voter that generally leans Democrat, although less so in recent years because I think the Republican leadership is insane, even though they have decent people at a local level. I did vote Republican for governor once, and he's currently in a federal penitentiary serving a multi-year sentence for racketeering and fraud.

Amerika

FatherTed wrote: »

That's strange because I never saw them on Fox News until last year. I don't think anybody heard of the Tea Party until after Obama became President. When did you join up?

It wasn’t until after this moment which got a lot of air play that there became an identifiable movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA

Didn’t join anything official, just went to a Tea Party gathering April 2009 in the town I worked in (lunch hour lasted me the rest of the day). Have been defending the movement ever since. We wanted to get to the Taxpayer March on Washington last year (9/12/09) but our work schedules didn’t allow. Maybe this year.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

It wasn’t until after this moment which got a lot of air play that there became an identifiable movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA

Didn’t join anything official, just went to a Tea Party gathering April 2009 in the town I worked in (lunch hour lasted me the rest of the day). Have been defending the movement ever since. We wanted to get to the Taxpayer March on Washington last year (9/12/09) but our work schedules didn’t allow. Maybe this year.

Its reported that tax went has gone down for the vast majority of people under Obama. So why has it become such an issue now?

Amerika

I like some of the posters argument here. Hey, let’s use it for the war protestors. “You didn’t complain vehemently before when comparable troop deaths were happening, so you can’t oppose the war now.” See how silly that sounds. But I digress.

President Barack Obama said he’s amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day: "So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies, about taxes. You would think they would be saying, "Thank you!" That's what you'd think!" Maybe he forgot that Tea Partiers are better educated than most. Maybe he forgot he is supposed to be President of the United Sates, and that “they” (and the growing number of people that support them) are a good portion of this country. We may not be considered "enlightened" to some, but we are well informed and remember this pledge: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." +

You see (well at least the Tea Party sees), that now president Obama claims his pledge only applied to income taxes. “And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That's another promise we've kept."

But Obama did break his "any form of tax increase" pledge, and the tea party participants know it. Representative Mike Pence took to the House floor to speak about Tax Day 2010, and called the president on his broken pledge.

This Congress has voted and this President has signed into law $670 billion in tax increases in the last year and a half. $670 billion! And this list includes 14 tax hikes signed into law totaling $316 billion on middle class families, in direct violation of the pledge President Obama made not to raise taxes on individuals that made less than $200,000 per year or families filing jointly that make less than $250,000 per year.
. . .
It is truly astonishing to think, that arriving on the scene during the worst economy in 25 years that the response of this administration and this Congress has been to take what in my judgement was excessive spending under GOP control and put it on steroids and pay for it with hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, and of course enacting more government.

backup:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DemTaxIncreases1.pdf

We know the greater fights for Cap-And-Trade(Tax) and national sales tax/VAT will be coming, which will increase the financial burden on every citizen (yes, even for the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax ). How else can he pay for his massive spending initiatives including his health care reform. And we know that amnesty for illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers up to an additional $2.5 trillion dollars.

But hey Mr. President, nothing says bi-partisanship more than mocking average citizens exercising their right to peaceably assemble in protest of their government's actions.

We can see November from our houses, and we will remember.

Memnoch

I looked at the PDF and don't see any evidence that Obama has gone back on his pledge.

You're taking taxes on goods and services and equating that somehow to taxes on people's incomes? This is idiotic and is a direct extention of the "any tax increase is bad," policy.

A typical example...

"Tobacco Tax increase and expanded enforcement authority"

What the hell? So now a tax on cigarettes, is somehow a tax on middle income families? That's just moronic.

Same goes for health care legislation. This is nothing more than spin doctoring. When someone begins with such preposterous assumptions I don't know where to even begin debating with them.

Edit: I get that republicans and Right wing folk in general have an issue with taxes, but to try and piggy back that onto Obama's pledge in this way is underhanded and dishonest.

Amerika

Do you consider it underhanded and dishonest when the Democrats (who were demanding new taxes) crucified George Bush Sr for gong back on his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes,” which derailed his reelection bid?

Just curious, what part of "not any of your taxes" (affecting the middle class) do you not understand?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Do you consider it underhanded and dishonest when the Democrats (who were demanding new taxes) crucified George Bush Sr for gong back on his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes,” which derailed his reelection bid?

Just curious, what part of "not any of your taxes" (affecting the middle class) do you not understand?

Its taxes affecting the middle class now?

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Do you consider it underhanded and dishonest when the Democrats (who were demanding new taxes) crucified George Bush Sr for gong back on his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes,” which derailed his reelection bid?

I'm not a democrat, and I didn't pass any judgement on George Bush Sr. I don't know about the facts involving the argument regarding taxes and Bush Sr. However, even if your assertion is true and IF they acted in an underhanded manner, that doesn't make it right for YOU to do the same. You need to make up your mind here, are you actually making an assertion on good faith, or simply resorting to underhanded tactics because you consider these par for the course?

Just curious, what part of "not any of your taxes" (affecting the middle class) do you not understand?

Again. I get the issue some people have with taxes and the idea of increasing taxes on anything in any shape or form.(though I disagree with the philosophy myself) But to somehow assert that Obama is going back on his pledge is either misguided or dishonest (take your pick).

To try and take his pledge and twist it so that "any tax increase of any kind," all of a sudden becomes his going back on his pledge is disingenuous. Taxes on goods and services do not equal to income tax, they don't change the amount of take home pay that people earn.

When he made that pledge, I didn't think, he better not be raising cigarette prices! I took it to mean exactly what he said. People who earn more than 250k will have to pay more tax on their earnings, those who earn less will not. Why define it by income if your talking about something else entirely? (which you are).

Denerick

I'd love it if the Tea Partiers comprised basically a Libertarian, Ron Paul element. Unfortunately they come across as Sarah Palin worshipping, loudmouth ignorant idiots, wanting to legislate homosexuality out of existance and bring the full weight of the federal government behind 'conservative' values, such as enforced teaching of a childish creation story in science class. Not good PR for American conservatism. Who knows, hopefully it'll even spark a schism in the Republican party between 'The Idiot wing' and the 'less idiot wing'. Could be interesting.

Also, the polls reveal some interesting things. Although not all identify with the Republican party, most 'don't' identify with the Democrats. So in essence, these guys will be voting Republican in any future election, as being the lesser of two evils. The hope would be that they would force some Republicans to be more extreme in the primaries in order to get nominated, or better yet, run a couple of kooks in a primary, win, and face a liberal democrat in a senate/congressional race and lose badly (Because I have no doubt most Americans will see through this ridiculousness come November)

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm not a democrat, and I didn't pass any judgement on George Bush Sr. I don't know about the facts involving the argument regarding taxes and Bush Sr. However, even if your assertion is true and IF they acted in an underhanded manner, that doesn't make it right for YOU to do the same. You need to make up your mind here, are you actually making an assertion on good faith, or simply resorting to underhanded tactics because you consider these par for the course?

Again. I get the issue some people have with taxes and the idea of increasing taxes on anything in any shape or form.(though I disagree with the philosophy myself) But to somehow assert that Obama is going back on his pledge is either misguided or dishonest (take your pick).

To try and take his pledge and twist it so that "any tax increase of any kind," all of a sudden becomes his going back on his pledge is disingenuous. Taxes on goods and services do not equal to income tax, they don't change the amount of take home pay that people earn.

When he made that pledge, I didn't think, he better not be raising cigarette prices! I took it to mean exactly what he said. People who earn more than 250k will have to pay more tax on their earnings, those who earn less will not. Why define it by income if your talking about something else entirely? (which you are).

NO, I do not accept your premise! More than any other politician, Barack Obama needs to be held accountable for his words and promises made during the campaign. You see, politicians break their campaign promises all the time. We know that. BUT, WHAT IS NOTEWORTHY ABOUT BARACK OBAMA IS THAT HIS CAMPAIGN ACKNOWLEDGED THIS BAD HABIT, THEN VEHEMENTLY PLEDGED THAT HE WOULD BE SO VERY DIFFERENT.

This is what he stated when he announced his presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois in February, 2007:

I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different...

That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams...This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible....

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through."

That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

So there you have it. He promised not to overpromise, and then to underdeliver. So to allow these lies (or whatever you want to call them) I guess we need to accept that he is much worse than your average politician. Accept that he is just a prevaricating political prostitute.

He was very clear that he would not raise taxes if your income is under $200,000. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." A tax is a tax, spin it any way you want. I remember during the election - debating with democrats that he was going to raise all kinds of different taxes. But they all argued against it, stating he wouldn't impose any form of taxes on those under $200,000 (so naive they were and continue to be). So I have no remorse or uncomfort going after him over this. History didn't start yesterday you know.

I am not being misguided or dishonest. I am holding him accountable for his words. Wasn't it he himself who said "Words must mean something."

Mr. Incognito

I think the tea party can be summed up thus:

It's one thing to know what you are against, quite another to know what you are for.

The tea party protest. As such they draw in everyone that wants to protest about everything.

They have no identity, no manifesto, no agenda, and as such I for one cannot take them seriously.

They don't know who to vote for but know who to vote against.

Depending on who you ask they appear to be at polar oppisite with themselves.

The vile mumblings of Palin who has appointed herself some sort of figurehead of this collection of protesting rabble amuses me. No-one in their right mind could take that woman seriously and she is probably the main reason that the Republicans lost the vote of independents in the 2008 elections.

Until they establish some sort of real identity for themselves they are just going to be a mob. And everyone knows a mob is stupid.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

NO, I do not accept your premise! More than any other politician, Barack Obama needs to be held accountable for his words and promises made during the campaign. You see, politicians break their campaign promises all the time. We know that. BUT, WHAT IS NOTEWORTHY ABOUT BARACK OBAMA IS THAT HIS CAMPAIGN ACKNOWLEDGED THIS BAD HABIT, THEN VEHEMENTLY PLEDGED THAT HE WOULD BE SO VERY DIFFERENT.

More than any other politician because you hate him so much you're forthing at the mouth over him? I think all politicians should be held to their word, and personally, I think he's doing a pretty good job so far of trying to deliver on his campaign promises. I don't expect perfection, because no one does that, but I think he's done a reasonable job so far.

So there you have it. He promised not to overpromise, and then to underdeliver. So to allow these lies (or whatever you want to call them) I guess we need to accept that he is much worse than your average politician. Accept that he is just a prevaricating political prostitute.

Straw man based on false assumptions and disingenuous arguments.

He was very clear that he would not raise taxes if your income is under $200,000. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." A tax is a tax, spin it any way you want.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these all seem to be taxes that people get taxed directly on by the government. I believe the last part of his statement was obviously for emphasis. Again, I don't accept that taxing goods and services = taxing "YOU", and by you I mean the proverbial you, i.e. middle class families.

I remember during the election - debating with democrats that he was going to raise all kinds of different taxes. But they all argued against it, stating he wouldn't impose any form of taxes on those under $200,000 (so naive they were and continue to be). So I have no remorse or uncomfort going after him over this. History didn't start yesterday you know.

I don't know who you debated with and I don't know what, if any, substance this statement of yours has. Can you give me SPECIFIC examples of taxes you claimed he would raise that democrats said he would not?

Personally, I have zero sympathy for anyone who thought that Obama's promise not to raise taxes on INDIVIDUALS/families somehow meant he wouldn't raise taxes on cigarettes or any other goods/services. It's just idiotic to think that.

I am not being misguided or dishonest. I am holding him accountable for his words. Wasn't it he himself who said "Words must mean something."

You are being dishonest. You are twisting his words to mean something they do not, to claim he said something he did not, so that you can then accuse him of reneging on his word, which he has not done.

If you take a statement out of context you can twist it to mean anything. It's pretty obvious what Obama meant, and there's no evidence he's gone back on it.

That's not to say he's kept every promise 100%. I for example wasn't delighted about the time he's taken to deal with Guantanemo.

Amerika

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I think the tea party can be summed up thus:

It's one thing to know what you are against, quite another to know what you are for.

The tea party protest. As such they draw in everyone that wants to protest about everything.

They have no identity, no manifesto, no agenda, and as such I for one cannot take them seriously.

They don't know who to vote for but know who to vote against.

Depending on who you ask they appear to be at polar oppisite with themselves.

The vile mumblings of Palin who has appointed herself some sort of figurehead of this collection of protesting rabble amuses me. No-one in their right mind could take that woman seriously and she is probably the main reason that the Republicans lost the vote of independents in the 2008 elections.

Until they establish some sort of real identity for themselves they are just going to be a mob. And everyone knows a mob is stupid.

I’m glad we amuse you. And I hope the left keeps thinking that way. Please ignore the fact that roughly 11 percent of all Americans say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. That would make it about 26 million voting tea party activists. (And I'm now hearing the numbers that support what the Tea Party is all about is reaching 20%.)

Come November, you might just wake up like I did the day after Jimmy Carter won, and say “HOLY CRAP, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!”

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I’m glad we amuse you. And I hope the left keeps thinking that way. Please ignore the fact that roughly 11 percent of all Americans say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. That would make it about 26 million voting tea party activists. (And I'm now hearing the numbers that support what the Tea Party is all about is reaching 20%.)

Come November, you might just wake up like I did the day after Jimmy Carter won, and say “HOLY CRAP, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!”

I think if 11% of Americans support the tea partiers, then at least 80% will recoil in horror at the prospect of a minority dictating some really extreme stuff to the majority. Good luck in November though - remember to get you and your buddies into every conceivable public space!! The more of you screaming nonsense about Obama been a nazi socialist communist, the better. You're almost like a fifth column within the Republican Party, providing a ready made parody that no Liberal Democrat could possibly think of.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

You are being dishonest. You are twisting his words to mean something they do not, to claim he said something he did not, so that you can then accuse him of reneging on his word, which he has not done.

Nope, I'm playing politics. That is after what this forum is all about - politics. To quote the words of Ernest Benn: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

You're almost like a fifth column within the Republican Party, providing a ready made parody that no Liberal Democrat could possibly think of.

Rather than the fifth column, I'd much rather prefer to think of myself as one that does the job the fourth estate should be doing.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Nope, I'm playing politics. That is after what this forum is all about - politics. To quote the words of Ernest Benn: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Right sorry, I thought you were trying to have a serious and honest discussion about important issues. So I guess you weren't being misguided, just dishonest.

How very Fox News of you.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I’m glad we amuse you. And I hope the left keeps thinking that way. Please ignore the fact that roughly 11 percent of all Americans say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. That would make it about 26 million voting tea party activists. (And I'm now hearing the numbers that support what the Tea Party is all about is reaching 20%.)

Come November, you might just wake up like I did the day after Jimmy Carter won, and say “HOLY CRAP, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!”

Like others have said there doesn't seem to be any one set of policies coming from the Tea Partiers just a load of different groups angry at the Gov. If they do organise into some kind of political force will they have their own candidates or will they vote Republican?
You think republicans are much different to Obama?

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Right sorry, I thought you were trying to have a serious and honest discussion about important issues. So I guess you weren't being misguided, just dishonest.

How very Fox News of you.

There is no right or wrong in this particular discussion, only differing visions (ie politics). You are hearing nothing from me you aren’t hearing from the majority of tea party protesters. Just being honest with a touch of humor.

But keep riding that elitist horse of yours. How very MSNBC of you.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

There is no right or wrong in this particular discussion, only differing visions (ie politics). You are hearing nothing from me you aren’t hearing from the majority of tea party protesters. Just being honest with a touch of humor.

But keep riding that elitist horse of yours. How very MSNBC of you.

I don't watch MSNBC, though I've seen an odd clip or two a while back. As for right or wrong, there actually is a clear right or wrong when you're trying to misrepresent what someone said in order to accuse/label them of being dishonest.

I submit that the reason you and the majority of tea party protesters are trying to label Obama as such is not because you have any credible evidence or even argument, but simply because you dislike him and will look for any angle to make him look bad, right or wrong.

Which is supremely ironic since the issue at stake seems to be honestly, or lack thereof.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

I submit that the reason you and the majority of tea party protesters are trying to label Obama as such is not because you have any credible evidence or even argument, but simply because you dislike him and will look for any angle to make him look bad, right or wrong.

You almost have it correct (or do you know better than me or us?). I and most tea party protesters dislike his administration, and any administration orchestrated by the Left/Liberals. Just being honest, as usual.

tim_holsters

southsiderosie wrote: »

Politico just conducted an exit poll at the Tea Party tax rally, and it really highlighted some of the differences within the Tea Party movement, and how they differ from Republicans at large:



I think the fact that as a practical matter (i.e. 2-party, first past the post system) libertarians are wedded to social conservatives through the Republican party means that a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their aims would never be comfortable voting for them. And the fringe of the Tea Party movement scares the **** out of me. That said, I don't think either Palin or Paul will lead the GOP presidential ticket in 2012.

Surely it will be Romney, but will being a Mormon make it a little difficult for lots of the "folks" to vote for him.

Amerika

Although I like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, I do hope the president we elect in 2012 will be a present or former Governor with executive experience. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty would fit that bill. But yes, the Left will demonize Romney’s being Mormon. Recent events indicate a senator doesn’t have what it takes to be president in a much troubled world.

tim_holsters

Amerika wrote: »

Although I like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, I do hope the president we elect in 2012 will be a present or former Governor with executive experience. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty would fit that bill. But yes, the Left will demonize Romney’s being Mormon. Recent events indicate a senator doesn’t have what it takes to be president in a much troubled world.

I was under the impression that it's the christian right that have problems with Romney being a Mormon.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

But keep riding that elitist horse of yours. How very MSNBC of you.

Ugh. That word. How you people have ruined politics and got away with it I'll never know.

InTheTrees

All this cackling about how no taxes will reault in some kind of paradise is just hot air.

Can these people point to one concrete example of a society thats boomed due to no taxes? Has it ever been actually tried? Are there any examples or do we just have to take sarah palins word for it?

InTheTrees

Denerick wrote: »

Ugh. That word. How you people have ruined politics and got away with it I'll never know.

Yup, They preach like its the Truth but insult you if you question them.

Amerika

tim_holsters wrote: »

I was under the impression that it's the christian right that have problems with Romney being a Mormon.

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference, which is filled with a lot of the Christian Right (Evangelical base of the Republican party) was recently held. At the end of the conference, they were asked who they’d vote for if the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today. Mitt Romney won out over everyone: Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Gary Johnson, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, and Rick Santorum. Romney just needs to keep preaching the things he believes in which are compatible with the Christian Right: importance of child rearing, preserving of the traditional marriage, debt and economic worries, and the presence of evil in the world. Oh and of course how the democrats has screwed everything up. It’s the Left he will have the most problems with IMO.

Denerick

How can you support Romney? He is such a transparant lier and populist. As governor of Massachussets he supported a welfare state and abortion, and now he's acting like some arch conservative. He'll do whatever gets him the most votes, his recent bilge ('Why America is great, no apologies', or something along those vacuous lines) is such patent nonsense and its so obvious he's preparing to run as President.

Honestly!

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

Ugh. That word. How you people have ruined politics and got away with it I'll never know.

When I talk about Elitist Liberalism, I am basically referring to the following description:

Liberals are so convinced of the rightness of their position and way of thinking, they cannot conceive of any way anyone could think differently. Liberals are so convinced of their own concept of "general welfare", they can't imagine why people aren't standing in line waiting for the benevolent nanny-state to give them what they need to cure all their ills. Liberals are at a loss to understand why some people would want to be self-reliant individuals, independent and free, instead of relying on the elitist do-gooders in government to solve all their problems. Liberals are absolutely convinced that they know best what is good for you – and that Big Government is the best vehicle with which to deliver all this goodness.

I’ve noticed some here fit that bill pretty darn well.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

He'll do whatever gets him the most votes, his recent bilge (...) is such patent nonsense and its so obvious he's preparing to run as President.

Sort reminds me of Obama in 2007/2008. Wouldn't you agree?

If he promises to be a fiscal conservative and reign in government size and interference, he would probably get my vote at this point, regardless of much ado about the other.

Denerick

Such blatant tosh, written by some goofball who has probably never even talked to a Liberal for more than five minutes. You might get away with this on conservapedia, but not here, mate.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Sort reminds me of Obama in 2008. Wouldn't you agree?

No, because Obama was a blank canvas who largely ran on the principles he held throughout his life. I'm aware self delusion is a major part of conservative politics in the US, but honestly.

You're ignoring the point here. Do you deny Mitt Romney was essentially a Liberal Republican while governor of Massachussets?

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

Such blatant tosh, written by some goofball who has probably never even talked to a Liberal for more than five minutes. You might get away with this on conservapedia, but not here, mate.

One side of the family is made up of Irish/Catholic liberal democrats. The other side is loaded with teachers and professors. I have my fill of liberals - thank you very much. Jack Daniels helps to soothe the brain drain (joking). You seem to be pretty free with direct personal abuse and attacks. Is this a normal trait of liberals?

Denerick wrote: »

You're ignoring the point here. Do you deny Mitt Romney was essentially a Liberal Republican while governor of Massachussets?

I think of Romney as a republican governor of one of the most liberal states in the union. As their chief executive, he had to do what the majority of the citizenship wanted, whether he wanted to or not. I only wish Obama would govern by what the majority of the citizenship wants. Sighhhhhhh!

tim_holsters

Amerika wrote: »

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference, which is filled with a lot of the Christian Right (Evangelical base of the Republican party) was recently held. At the end of the conference, they were asked who they’d vote for if the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today. Mitt Romney won out over everyone: Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Gary Johnson, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, and Rick Santorum. Romney just needs to keep preaching the things he believes in which are compatible with the Christian Right: importance of child rearing, preserving of the traditional marriage, debt and economic worries, and the presence of evil in the world. Oh and of course how the democrats has screwed everything up. It’s the Left he will have the most problems with IMO.

Yes I seen that, only a few hundred votes are cast though so is it a real signifier I'm not sure of the history there. Romney would seem the most rational choice for me he seems to be more grounded and less unhinged than the other's, I've never heard of Mike Pence mind.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

One side of the family is made up of Irish/Catholic liberal democrats. The other side is loaded with teachers and professors. I have my fill of liberals - thank you very much. Jack Daniels helps to soothe the brain drain (joking). You seem to be pretty free with direct personal abuse and attacks. Is this a normal trait of liberals?

Well I apologise. I just find your particular brand of polemical politics (IE, using catchphrase insults like 'elitist liberals' etc. etc.) to be a bit dumbfounding. The world 'elitist' is overused by conservatives and leads to voters making a virtue out of stupidity - a lá Sarah Palin. Good God, the very worst manifestation of all of America's problems. And there is a chance she might be the next President.

I think of Romney as a republican governor of one of the most liberal states in the union. As their chief executive, he had to do what the majority of the citizenship wanted, whether he wanted to or not. I only wish Obama would govern by what the majority of the citizenship wants. Sighhhhhhh!

Thats a cop out. Its very obvious he had to rush ahead of everyone else to look 'the most intolerant', an unfortunate tactic that Republicans always have to use to win votes in the American equivilent of the nasty party.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

I just find your particular brand of polemical politics (IE, using catchphrase insults like 'elitist liberals' etc. etc.) to be a bit dumbfounding. The world 'elitist' is overused by conservatives and leads to voters making a virtue out of stupidity - a lá Sarah Palin.

But phrases like “loudmouth ignorant idiots,” “virtue out of stupidity,” and “The Idiot wing” and the “less idiot wing” are okay in your book? Just trying to understand.

steelcityblues

Romney's a first class phoney, who probably should have a 'D' next to his name on a C-SPAN graphic.

Really hope he does not get the Republican nod for 2012.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

But phrases like “loudmouth ignorant idiots,” “virtue out of stupidity,” and “The Idiot wing” and the “less idiot wing” are okay in your book? Just trying to understand.

Good point I suppose. But the difference is that I'm right and you're wrong. But I would say that!!

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

But the difference is that I'm right and you're wrong.

Well, he's technically the right one. :P

Ah, poor pun...

Amerika

Well, one of you got it right correct.

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

I like some of the posters argument here. Hey, let’s use it for the war protestors. “You didn’t complain vehemently before when comparable troop deaths were happening, so you can’t oppose the war now.” See how silly that sounds. But I digress.

President Barack Obama said he’s amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day: "So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies, about taxes. You would think they would be saying, "Thank you!" That's what you'd think!" Maybe he forgot that Tea Partiers are better educated than most. Maybe he forgot he is supposed to be President of the United Sates, and that “they” (and the growing number of people that support them) are a good portion of this country. We may not be considered "enlightened" to some, but we are well informed and remember this pledge: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." +

You see (well at least the Tea Party sees), that now president Obama claims his pledge only applied to income taxes. “And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That's another promise we've kept."

But Obama did break his "any form of tax increase" pledge, and the tea party participants know it. Representative Mike Pence took to the House floor to speak about Tax Day 2010, and called the president on his broken pledge.



backup:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DemTaxIncreases1.pdf

We know the greater fights for Cap-And-Trade(Tax) and national sales tax/VAT will be coming, which will increase the financial burden on every citizen (yes, even for the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax ). How else can he pay for his massive spending initiatives including his health care reform. And we know that amnesty for illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers up to an additional $2.5 trillion dollars.

But hey Mr. President, nothing says bi-partisanship more than mocking average citizens exercising their right to peaceably assemble in protest of their government's actions.

We can see November from our houses, and we will remember.

Honestly, this post sounds like Glenn Beck, or something from Fox News at the very least.

I really wouldn't want people on the left talking like this. It's like you're talking in slogans rather than making an argument. This is almost always what the US Right does, it's unfortunately quite successful(it's designed to be) and immensely tiring.

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

But phrases like “loudmouth ignorant idiots,” “virtue out of stupidity,” and “The Idiot wing” and the “less idiot wing” are okay in your book? Just trying to understand.

They're better in a sense because they're out of genuine aggrivation. This is a human reaction and conservatives are sounding more and more like tape recorders.

Many of the comments from right wingers carry the kind of smugness you might expect from an "elitist liberal intellectual" - even though they're "reactionary", it's not much of an emotional or a personal reaction. You're making your little Atlas Shrugged speeches out of bits you've pieced together from blogs, and anything else you post makes heavy use of condescending language.

Those comments are directed towards the right because of their insistance on the kind of tactics you use in this thread. Sometimes there is valid cause for such harsh criticism, sometimes there isn't. I'm tired of the right and centrists acting like both sides are "just as bad" when it's already been pointing out there are hardly any left wing Ann Coulters.

If you're aware of the distinction between a Troll and the Trolled, then you might understand the difference.

The right wing is just so immensely intellectaully dishonest - this is my main issue. For example I'm sure you'll call moral relativism on some aspect of my post when you don't believe in that in the slightest - the right seems to see opinions as weapons and ideologies as tools to be used and discarded(just like they no doubt acuse Obama of doing).

FatherTed

Denerick wrote: »

Well I apologise. I just find your particular brand of polemical politics (IE, using catchphrase insults like 'elitist liberals' etc. etc.) to be a bit dumbfounding. The world 'elitist' is overused by conservatives and leads to voters making a virtue out of stupidity - a lá Sarah Palin. Good God, the very worst manifestation of all of America's problems. And there is a chance she might be the next President.



Thats a cop out. Its very obvious he had to rush ahead of everyone else to look 'the most intolerant', an unfortunate tactic that Republicans always have to use to win votes in the American equivilent of the nasty party.

Both sides are very good at coming up with these catch phrases. It's been the likes of Limbaugh and Hanitty who've been using the "elitist" phrase for years and now the Tea Party is using it. So now you know where they come from.