The Tea Party vs. NPR

Aaron I agree that both use emotions to "get places," but on what basis do you doubt their sincerity? One can exploit what is truly their own opinion.

For Beck, I had my doubts about him for a long time (his crying is over the top and in no way seems sincere) but the definning moment was when he came onto stage for his Take Back America rally. The way he stood their, with his arms spread, reveling in the applause as if he were some sort of rock star.

Many reasons why here, incliding the comment "Glenn Beck waves and God waves back."

Please.

For Palin, it was when she quit. I heard all the talk about saving taxpayers money and how the suits would hinder government and to me, that was nothing but crap. She knew she had a limited opportunity to 1) cash in and 2) see if she were a viable Presidential candidate. That's why she quit.

Aaron wrote:I answered your question the first time. It's not my fault you cannot comprehend the issues I have with both. In the future, instead of being a smartass, when conversing with you should I come down to your level?

No you didn't, you just played smartass because it was me that posed the question. I notice sheikben asked the very same question and got a reasonable answer.

No, you didn't ask the same question SB did. He ask what about them that I found insincere. you ask what they've said that makes them look like idiots. There is a bit of a difference.

The problem your question poses is that there is so much both of said (google either and idiot and see what comes up) but it is not necessary their words but more their actions that make them "idiots" in my view.

And the key is, it is my view. Just because I find both to be unappealing doesn't mean others have to.

And perhaps I did overreact when you ask your question. If I did, I apologize for that reaction but I did answer your question.

A big part of what I have with both is their jumping on the TEA Party bandwagon and hijacking the issue by combining fiscal issues with social issues.

I recall the birth of the TEA Party movement and the hope I had of a viable 3rd party but after the likes of Beck and Palin jumped on board, it's nothing more then an arm of the Republican Party and that is sad as all of America will suffer.

I'm not sure that all America suffers with the Tea Party being absorbed into the Republican party, IFF (if and only if) the Tea Party demands that the Republicans get a spine on spending. I think this is starting to happen. I like the Tea Party in the Republican Party as long as the Republican Party is afraid of losing them. If a third party sprouts up, it puts the Democrats in charge. There is no other way about it. The sane must walk together or the insane will reign.

Here's my point, I guess. If the Tea Party'ers bolt, then the Republicans do not need to worry about them, as they are screwed. If, however, they remain, the threat of losing them does more good than actually losing them.

There will always be social conservatives for fiscal sanity. The longer I live, the more I see that big government becomes immoral, not just inefficient. I do not need the Tea Party to become evangelical Christians; however, I don't see why those of us on the social right should avoid tea party meetings.

As for Palin, she was acting very pragmatically, and the "lawsuit excuse" was not lying but rather a very unfortunate example of "using the truth economically." I do think she wanted to spare the state the lawsuit funds, even though that is not the primary reason she left.

Now Beck cries but so too does a friend of mine, and I don't get why they get weepy but since I see it in my friend I believe it can be other than contrived. Now do folks who get paid big bucks to speak crave publicity and whatever fosters it? There can be no doubt. Does this sometimes make them all look like jackasses? Yup!

SheikBen wrote:I'm not sure that all America suffers with the Tea Party being absorbed into the Republican party, IFF (if and only if) the Tea Party demands that the Republicans get a spine on spending. I think this is starting to happen. I like the Tea Party in the Republican Party as long as the Republican Party is afraid of losing them. If a third party sprouts up, it puts the Democrats in charge. There is no other way about it. The sane must walk together or the insane will reign.

I don't think it is starting to happen Mike. Many in the TEA Party were elected on the promise of cutting $100 Billion from THIS year's budget. They got to $60 billion and then traditional Republicans joined with Democrats in saying the cuts were too much and shut them down.

Additionally, no Republicans other then Paul Ryan that I've heard are willing to put Social Security, Medicare, Medicate or Defense on the chopping blocks. All I've heard from his proposal is changes in Medicare and nothing else.

As entitlement spending is what is killing us, cutting discretionary spending will not solve our problems. When you combine that only discretionary spending is being considered with the fact that John Boehmer has said shutting down the goverment IS NOT an option-he's afraid of losing the Presidency-how can we expect anything but compromise and continued spending and increased debt?

By the Republican Party abosrbing the TEA Party movement Independents and conservative Democats are leaving. All that does is ensure that what has passed for the Republican Party over the past 30 years will continue for decades to come.

Considering that about the only difference between those Republican's and Democrats is moral issues combined with the fact that Republican Presidents are responsible for a larger percentage of the our current debt then Democrats, I hardly see how that is a good thing.

SheikBen wrote:There will always be social conservatives for fiscal sanity. The longer I live, the more I see that big government becomes immoral, not just inefficient. I do not need the Tea Party to become evangelical Christians; however, I don't see why those of us on the social right should avoid tea party meetings.

I don't think anyone is asking those on the social right to not attend meetings. What I'm saying is that if the religious right does want to attend these meetings to discuss fiscal issues, that's great but don't insist on injecting social issues into the conversation. Leave those at home becasue what happens is that either a majority of other participants agree on social issues or those that do not agree remain silent and as a result, moral issues become a central issue to the organization. When that happens it runs those of us who do not either agree or do agree but believe they should not be part of the conversation off. That is a fact that has been proven time and again over the past two years.

And I agree, big government is immoral. I just haven't, in my lifetime, witnessed Republicans reducing the size of government. If anything, with defense and homeland security they're as responsible, if not more so, for increasing the size of our government then Democrats are.

It's not like you guys can point to any point in your history in the past ~100 years or so and say, "Hey, we're the good guys, we've actually controlled spending and cut government."

Both parties are pretty much equally responsible for all that ills this country and the Independent voter (who actually decides elections) is left being forced to choose between the worst of two fringe elements of both parties. We've given both equally shots and neither is getting the job done but neither is willing to change the rules to allow anyone other those two parties have a say in the game.

Ron Paul is the perfect example of what I am talking about. First, he had to switch to the Republican Party to even get elected and then he's the outcast of his own party, given the monniker of Dr. No and treated like the red headed step child. Look at how Republicans treated him in the last election.

Why should those who were part of the original TEA Party movement based on shared convictions of Dr. Paul believe todays Republican Party will treat them any different then they have Dr. Paul?

Look, I can tell you firsthand we are treated very poorly by the Republican establishment, at least here in Putnam County, WV.

Stephanie wrote:Look, I can tell you firsthand we are treated very poorly by the Republican establishment, at least here in Putnam County, WV.

I suspect that is because you and many Tea Party folks are libertarian (small "l"), but the current Putnam County Republican movers and shakers are anything but libertarian. So if you want to be treated with respect, become the MOVERS & SHAKERS.

Now Beck cries but so too does a friend of mine, and I don't get why they get weepy but since I see it in my friend I believe it can be other than contrived.

Hey, I cry, a good tear-jerking story of either success or failure will oftentimes trigger an emotional response in my subconscious memories.

And then there are times I cry whenever someone really, really pisses me off, ...... and if you are the one to do that then I suggest that you "clear the field" .... for your own safety and well being.

SheikBen wrote:As for Palin, she was acting very pragmatically, and the "lawsuit excuse" was not lying but rather a very unfortunate example of "using the truth economically." I do think she wanted to spare the state the lawsuit funds, even though that is not the primary reason she left.

So Michael, what was her ..... primary reason for resigning?

Surely not her asperations of a higher Political Office or even a Million$ Book Deal because both of them would "still be on the table" at the end of her Term as Governor.

DUH, ....... if McCain and her had won ....... Palin would have resigned, ..... just like Obama, Biden ........ and even Joe Manchin did.

And if that had happened, those persons who are .....
"Haters of Abstract Thinking Successful Females" ......

would still be calling Palin a "quitter", ..... an "idiot" ..... and most any other derogatory term they could think up "to mimic" on the "spur of the moment".

Macho male Concrete Thinkers are more often than not, ..... extremely jealous .... of female Abstract Thinkers ...... primarily because said females can "think n' talk" a whole lot faster than said macho males are capable of "listening and undertanding".

And that pisses them off ....... right down to the ends of their toe nails. Macho males really detest being "bettered" by a female, any female, ..... and they will absolutely, positively deny and/or refuse to admit that said "betterment" ever happened

Macho male Concrete Thinkers are also ..... jealous .... of any male Abstract Thinkers ...... that offers, poses or provides anything contrary to their "concrete thoughts" ....... and that is because doing said presents a "real danger" to their perceived macho status.

Now ya can tell me in "macho terms" .......... that it ain't so.

I'll say one thing for you Sammy ole boy, while you may not be able to answer the simpest of questions and you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, you can sure sling crap with the best of them.



Just so you know, if McCain/Palin would have won the Presidency and she resigned as result of that, she would have been called Madam Vice-President and it would have been her sticking her foot in her mouth instead of the idiot Biden.

Hi Sam,

I don't doubt the jealousy angle, but no one could have blamed Palin for taking the promotion to Vice President, if the office of Vice President could be called a promotion. Palin's advisors correctly suggested that she would do better out of office than in it, and she acted acccordingly. The lawsuits were a convenient excuse--showing that perhaps she is not the altogether dolt that folks seem to think.

SheikBen wrote:Hi Sam,

I don't doubt the jealousy angle, but no one could have blamed Palin for taking the promotion to Vice President, if the office of Vice President could be called a promotion. Palin's advisors correctly suggested that she would do better out of office than in it, and she acted acccordingly. The lawsuits were a convenient excuse--showing that perhaps she is not the altogether dolt that folks seem to think.

Palin isn't the moron she is painted as, especially by the media. She speaks her mind and that makes many mad and others nervous.

Aaron wrote:No, you didn't ask the same question SB did. He ask what about them that I found insincere. you ask what they've said that makes them look like idiots. There is a bit of a difference.

The problem your question poses is that there is so much both of said (google either and idiot and see what comes up) but it is not necessary their words but more their actions that make them "idiots" in my view.

Fair enough.

Aaron wrote:And perhaps I did overreact when you ask your question. If I did, I apologize for that reaction but I did answer your question.

Boy, I bet that hurt.

Aaron wrote:A big part of what I have with both is their jumping on the TEA Party bandwagon and hijacking the issue by combining fiscal issues with social issues.

In many ways they are combined, at least in my opinion. The way I see it, the fiscal issues facing this nation can be attributed to the social issues Beck and Palin speak about. Between wealth envy, laziness, and narcissism, segments of the public and self serving politicans have buried this nation in debt and limited our liberties. Both parties cater to people who are addicted to the government and the dole, without giving a single thought to who has to pay for it or what they are doing to freedom.

You are right, on one point, that is I'm not the shapest tool in the shed, but I do understand that the purpose of govenrment is to defend the liberties we have. Government does not exist to fullfill every want and wish of every person on the planet. Yet, that is exactly what our leadership has done.

Aaron wrote:I recall the birth of the TEA Party movement and the hope I had of a viable 3rd party but after the likes of Beck and Palin jumped on board, it's nothing more then an arm of the Republican Party and that is sad as all of America will suffer.

I don't know what the TEA party is or isn't and maybe that isn't all that important. Whether or not it is an arm of the republican party, remains to be seen. Sometime, it certainly appears that it is and then sometimes it doesn't.

What is important, I think, is that a vast majority of people are plain sick and tired of the status quo and thus the rise of the TEA party movement. It has given a platform to a number of people who seem to be more in touch with the real purpose of government and meaning of liberty. However, is the TEA Party perfect? Just as neither Palin and Beck are not perfect, neither is the TEA Party.

It is like my issue with Ron Paul. Here is a man saying many good things about fiscal responsibility, and yet he is in the trenches doing the very thing he condemns others for. He just proves, that the bottom line is no politician, like no movement is perfect. We need to remember that.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Look, I can tell you firsthand we are treated very poorly by the Republican establishment, at least here in Putnam County, WV.

I suspect that is because you and many Tea Party folks are libertarian (small "l"), but the current Putnam County Republican movers and shakers are anything but libertarian. So if you want to be treated with respect, become the MOVERS & SHAKERS.

I no longer have that in me, Ziggy.

I've never said Palin was a dolt. I think she's a self serving individual that cares about no one but herself. As for speaking her mind, that's not always a good thing.

But it turns out the video may have been more than just a political misstep for Palin. Her decision to speak out may have also alienated one of her key patrons, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, who had urged his employee to keep quiet about the debate.

"Lie low," Ailes told Palin, according to New York Magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "There's no need to inject yourself into the story."

According to Sherman, Ailes wasn't the only one urging the former Alaska governor to stay out of the limelight. She reportedly told Ailes that her attorney, Washington power lawyer Bob Bennett, had told her not to respond.

But Palin did it anyway--and in the process irked Ailes, who reportedly pays her $1 million a year to be a Fox News contributor. "The Tucson thing was horrible," a source close to Ailes told Sherman. "Before she responded, she was making herself look like a victim. She was winning. She went out and did the blood libel thing, and Roger is thinking, 'Why did you call me for advice?' "

Source

SheikBen wrote:Hi Sam,

I don't doubt the jealousy angle, but no one could have blamed Palin for taking the promotion to Vice President, if the office of Vice President could be called a promotion. Palin's advisors correctly suggested that she would do better out of office than in it, and she acted acccordingly. The lawsuits were a convenient excuse--showing that perhaps she is not the altogether dolt that folks seem to think.

When I say idiot Mike, it's not that I think Palin is stupid. I know better. You don't become a Governor without some brains. What I am referring to is her decision making and common sense. She lacks in both.

And if Palin's advisors suggested that she would do better out of office then in, they were wrong but I honestly don't think that was their decision. I think that "idiot" move was all hers and I think it was based on money and cashing in.

If she truly wanted to be President, what should have done was found her a Karl Rove type king maker, went back and finished at least one term while polishing her persona and then made her case which is why I say again, her decision was all about cashing in.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:No, you didn't ask the same question SB did. He ask what about them that I found insincere. you ask what they've said that makes them look like idiots. There is a bit of a difference.

The problem your question poses is that there is so much both of said (google either and idiot and see what comes up) but it is not necessary their words but more their actions that make them "idiots" in my view.

Fair enough.

Ok then

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:And perhaps I did overreact when you ask your question. If I did, I apologize for that reaction but I did answer your question.

Boy, I bet that hurt.

Not at all. I'm not Sam, I can be wrong.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:A big part of what I have with both is their jumping on the TEA Party bandwagon and hijacking the issue by combining fiscal issues with social issues.

In many ways they are combined, at least in my opinion. The way I see it, the fiscal issues facing this nation can be attributed to the social issues Beck and Palin speak about. Between wealth envy, laziness, and narcissism, segments of the public and self serving politicans have buried this nation in debt and limited our liberties. Both parties cater to people who are addicted to the government and the dole, without giving a single thought to who has to pay for it or what they are doing to freedom.

You are right, on one point, that is I'm not the shapest tool in the shed, but I do understand that the purpose of govenrment is to defend the liberties we have. Government does not exist to fullfill every want and wish of every person on the planet. Yet, that is exactly what our leadership has done.

Then why wasn't Beck and Palin talking about fiscal issues during the election when Ron Paul was talking about them. If I recall, neither were very kind to Dr. Paul and his message. It seems they waited until the movement was well underway and then come riding in thinking they could add something to the movement? The simple truth is, both have done more harm to the TEA Party movement then they've done good as neither knows how to control their big mouth. The story about Palin is a case in point.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I recall the birth of the TEA Party movement and the hope I had of a viable 3rd party but after the likes of Beck and Palin jumped on board, it's nothing more then an arm of the Republican Party and that is sad as all of America will suffer.

I don't know what the TEA party is or isn't and maybe that isn't all that important. Whether or not it is an arm of the republican party, remains to be seen. Sometime, it certainly appears that it is and then sometimes it doesn't.

What is important, I think, is that a vast majority of people are plain sick and tired of the status quo and thus the rise of the TEA party movement. It has given a platform to a number of people who seem to be more in touch with the real purpose of government and meaning of liberty. However, is the TEA Party perfect? Just as neither Palin and Beck are not perfect, neither is the TEA Party.

I think it's pretty clear that it is an arm of the Republican Party. Were it not, I don't believe Republicans would have stopped at $60 billion in their budget and I don't believe for a second they would have agreed to the 3rd continuing resolution since they were sworn in.

Cato wrote:It is like my issue with Ron Paul. Here is a man saying many good things about fiscal responsibility, and yet he is in the trenches doing the very thing he condemns others for. He just proves, that the bottom line is no politician, like no movement is perfect. We need to remember that.

I have the same issue with Ron Paul and for the record, while she won't admit it, Stephanie is wrong on Paul's reasoning. No, Congress should not be earmarking every federal dollar. This is pork for his voters and it is meant to keep him coming back to Washington, plain and simple. That's the way I see it and that's the problem I have with earmarks. Even those who are in favor of controlling spending are suseptable to the wiles of money, Paul included.

what should have done was ....... went back and finished at least one term while polishing her persona and then made her case which is why I say again, her decision was all about cashing in.

With tens of thousands of scumbags like you bashing and pounding on her every minute of every day ........ I'm sure her persona would have been shining like new Tiffany silver by the end of her Term as Governor.

I think it's pretty clear that it (TEA party ) is an arm of the Republican Party. Were it not, I don't believe Republicans would have stopped at $60 billion in their budget and I don't believe for a second they would have agreed to the 3rd continuing resolution since they were sworn in.

So, the TEA party is an arm of the Republican Party and the TEA party FORCED the Republicans to stop at $60 billion in Budget cuts ......... and the TEA party FORCED the Republicans to vote for the 3rd continuing resolution.

Holy Jesus jumping kerist, ........ I seriously doubt that even a learning disabled autistic wouldn't be so mentally retarded as to make such a silly accusation.

Anyone that asserts, implies or claims that all the currently claiming Wannabe-Tea-Partiers are actually who they claim to be ...... is either a devious "TEA party" defaming individual or is dumber than a box of rocks ...... or both.

Aaron wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that it is an arm of the Republican Party. Were it not, I don't believe Republicans would have stopped at $60 billion in their budget and I don't believe for a second they would have agreed to the 3rd continuing resolution since they were sworn in.

You raise a good point and one I may have to agree with, I guess. I keep telling myself the reason this has played out as it has is because there were not enough TEA party folks elected to the house.

I wish I understood why the republicans fear so shutting down the government. Speaking personally, I'd allow it to shutdown and then stand my ground until I had reasonable and unrevokeable cuts. Afterall, if you are going to campaign on fiscal responsibility, then you ought to be able to stand up for that pledge, no matter the ramifications.

Aaron wrote:I have the same issue with Ron Paul and for the record, while she won't admit it, Stephanie is wrong on Paul's reasoning. No, Congress should not be earmarking every federal dollar. This is pork for his voters and it is meant to keep him coming back to Washington, plain and simple. That's the way I see it and that's the problem I have with earmarks. Even those who are in favor of controlling spending are suseptable to the wiles of money, Paul included.

And that is the point, you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth. Dr. Paul has done just that and he has lost credibility in my opinion.

SamCogar wrote:Anyone that asserts, implies or claims that all the currently claiming Wannabe-Tea-Partiers are actually who they claim to be ...... is either a devious "TEA party" defaming individual or is dumber than a box of rocks ...... or both.

I see you finally agree with me Sam. That's exactly what I've been saying about Palin and Beck, both are Wannabe-Tea-Partiers, I've shown why and when I did, you got your panties in a wad and started crying like a 4 year old.

Why is that.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that it is an arm of the Republican Party. Were it not, I don't believe Republicans would have stopped at $60 billion in their budget and I don't believe for a second they would have agreed to the 3rd continuing resolution since they were sworn in.

You raise a good point and one I may have to agree with, I guess. I keep telling myself the reason this has played out as it has is because there were not enough TEA party folks elected to the house.

I wish I understood why the republicans fear so shutting down the government. Speaking personally, I'd allow it to shutdown and then stand my ground until I had reasonable and unrevokeable cuts. Afterall, if you are going to campaign on fiscal responsibility, then you ought to be able to stand up for that pledge, no matter the ramifications.

Aaron wrote:I have the same issue with Ron Paul and for the record, while she won't admit it, Stephanie is wrong on Paul's reasoning. No, Congress should not be earmarking every federal dollar. This is pork for his voters and it is meant to keep him coming back to Washington, plain and simple. That's the way I see it and that's the problem I have with earmarks. Even those who are in favor of controlling spending are suseptable to the wiles of money, Paul included.

And that is the point, you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth. Dr. Paul has done just that and he has lost credibility in my opinion.

When you agree with me Cato, unlike Sam, you sound sane and reasonable.

Earmarks would not be an issue if government operated within the framework of the Constitution. It does not.

Oh, to step into the great Sarah Palin debate, or not to step into the great Sarah Palin debate?

I think Sarah Palin is like a lot of politicians. She started out with good intentions. She still has good intentions, but her meteoric rise has corrupted her.

Like the rest of us, Mrs. Palin is human. In general I like her, but I don't want her for my President because she not only doesn't have a problem with interferring in the operations of other sovereign nations, she encourages it. She obviously believes that her religion has a place in OUR government and it has none.

I like Sarah Palin better when she was the Governor of Alaska. She was a public servant then. Now, she's some sort of opportunistic political animal, imho. This became crystal clear to me just about a week ago when I saw her on Judge Napolitano's show. I forget the name of it, I don't typically watch the Judge. I like his politics, but he yells too much.

Anyway, so she's on libertarian Judge Napolitano's show and she tells him how much she loves Rand & Ron Paul. Now, I consider that pandering. She wouldn't say that on O'Reilly's show, she wouldn't say that to Sean Hannity and his minions, she made sure she said it on a broadcast with a viewership that loves the Pauls.

I do give her a lot of credit for not going postal on the likes of that foul-mouthed, no-class, red-headed loser who regularly targets Palin's family. You know who I'm talking about, Kathy what's her name. She recently said she was going after Willow. Give me a break.

I remember when Obama first took office the Mrs. having a cow because some company was going to sell Sasha and Malia dolls. Can you imagine what would happen if Dennis Miller announced he had put a bullseye on Malia's head for the year?

OK, so I stepped in the great Sarah Palin debate. My $0.02