Ron Paul supporter kicked out of Tea Party rally

[phreakwars]

Just proves the T(errorist) party has been taken over by a bunch of Sarah Palin worshipping Neo-Cons. Not TRUE conservatism.

 

[hugo]

I gave up on the Tea party as soon as I saw Bimbo Palin making a speech to them.

[phreakwars]

You know what's PATHETIC? Is I, along with MANY MANY MANY other progressives WANT to see Ron Paul as the Republican nominee.

 

Progressives are center left fence sitters, just a few socialist policy's away from being libertarians... TRUE PALEO CONSERVATIVES, who hate the same thing the REAL tea party of old hated... Corporations who suck Government cock!!

 

The REAL criminal element in America.

 

The RON PAUL tea party needs to take back it's cause from the neo-con supporters who fukked it all up. They would FOR SURE, get many Democrat progressive votes away from Obama.

 

The rest would take care of itself.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong.. I like Obama, and the only reason I defend the guy is because I feel conservatives don't show enough patience with him. Ron Paul is also a great contender for POTUS because he has something NOT ONE GOD DAMN REPUBLICAN propaganda spreading, mindless fukking drone, do it for the RNC money rep has, and that would be vision.

 

Obama got my past Republican vote for one key reason... He offered vision.

 

Ron Paul is the man that can, and WOULD beat Obama in a POTUS race. I don't understand why any SANE person would ever fukk around with even considering a stupid fukking idiot as Palin to even be a contender.

 

SURELY A TRUE PALEO CONSERVATIVE REGIME WILL SAVE US ALL!!

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/Hoosier_Daddy%3A_Whittle_Lights_Up_Indy%27s_Tax_Day_Tea_Party/3451/

[ToriAllen]

Progressives are center left fence sitters, just a few socialist policy's away from being libertarians... .

Most libertarians do not believe in socialist policies, but more of the self actualization and freedom to realize your full potential without constraint. True libertarians believe in complete social and economic freedom. It is more a pure capitalism/free market view. Libertarian socialists are like neo-conservatives…They just don’t get it.

[hugo]

Most libertarians do not believe in socialist policies, but more of the self actualization and freedom to realize your full potential without constraint. True libertarians believe in complete social and economic freedom. It is more a pure capitalism/free market view. Libertarian socialists are like neo-conservatives…They just don’t get it.

 

 

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Thomas Jefferson

[ImWithStupid]

Progressives are center left fence sitters, just a few socialist policy's away from being libertarians...

 

 

If a person is center-anything, they aren't a Progressive. Progressivism is the antithesis of Libertarianism.

[ToriAllen]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Thomas Jefferson

 

Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.

-Ayn Rand

[phreakwars]

Oh GOD, your one of those Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged nuts too?

 

IT'S A FICTIONAL BOOK PEOPLE!!

 

You can give it the same credibility as H.G. Well's "Time Machine"

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Oh GOD, your one of those Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged nuts too?

 

IT'S A FICTIONAL BOOK PEOPLE!!

 

You can give it the same credibility as H.G. Well's "Time Machine"

.

.

 

 

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/index.html

[phreakwars]

Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

~Ayn Rand

.

.

[hugo]

Ayn may not have liked the idea but objectivists are a subset of libertarians.Works of fiction are frequently used to express a political philosophy. I consider anyone who wishes to reduce the size of government an ally.

[ToriAllen]

IT'S A FICTIONAL BOOK PEOPLE!!

 

You can give it the same credibility as H.G. Well's "Time Machine"

.

.

That's wrong, and I'll tell you why. She didn't write it as an entertaining fictional book; she wrote it as an expression of her philosophical views and a way to explain objectivism. It is more like Plato's The Republic, only with a plot.

[hugo]

That's wrong, and I'll tell you why. She didn't write it as an entertaining fictional book; she wrote it as an expression of her philosophical views and a way to explain objectivism. It is more like Plato's The Republic, only with a plot.

 

Or Sinclair's The Jungle.

[phreakwars]

Or the bible/Koran/Torah...etc...

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Or the bible/Koran/Torah...etc...

.

.

 

 

...Inconvenient Truth...

[phreakwars]

Here's the problem I have with that... taking ANYBODYS word about what life's all about and how society should function. Everybody has an answer, everybody has a Utopia, everybody has their own new wave religion/philosophy on life. Everyone knows what the real problem with the world is.

 

Rod Serling was just as good a conveyor of what society is to people with the Twilight Zone series as Rand could ever hope to be. Both, fictional story tellers. I give them both equal credibility about my own thoughts on life.

.

.

[hugo]

Whether you are liberal or conservative you should condemn the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren as immoral.

 

We all have our influences. My top influences politically are Milton Friedman,Barry Goldwater. Hayek, JS Mill, The Founding Fathers, Jefferson and Madison in particular, and on foreign policy, Pat Buchanan and Hans Morgenthau. I give these individuals much more credibility than Marx, Keynes and Geoorge McGovern, others disagree.

[ToriAllen]

Here's the problem I have with that... taking ANYBODYS word about what life's all about and how society should function. Everybody has an answer, everybody has a Utopia, everybody has their own new wave religion/philosophy on life. Everyone knows what the real problem with the world is.

 

Rod Serling was just as good a conveyor of what society is to people with the Twilight Zone series as Rand could ever hope to be. Both, fictional story tellers. I give them both equal credibility about my own thoughts on life.

.

.

I agree that everyone has their own view of the world and what it should be, but that doesn't really fit with your credibility argument. By the logic of your first statement, everyone should be given the same amount of credibility because opinions are like a--holes.

 

However, you then go on to imply that Rand somehow deserves less credibility than other people because she expressed her views through fiction as well as non-fiction books. I believe that is actually a common trend among philosophers who are trying to make a point. There are a lot of fictional book written to make a point and some do it quite well. It does not degrade the credibility of a philosopher to apply ideas to a fictional story.

 

Love Twilight Zone, by the way. Lots of good observations about society in them.

[hugo]

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicaljunkies/tp/classic_novels.htm

[phreakwars]

However, you then go on to imply that Rand somehow deserves less credibility than other people because she expressed her views through fiction as well as non-fiction books. I believe that is actually a common trend among philosophers who are trying to make a point. There are a lot of fictional book written to make a point and some do it quite well. It does not degrade the credibility of a philosopher to apply ideas to a fictional story.

 

Love Twilight Zone, by the way. Lots of good observations about society in them.

No, I said she deserved EQUAL credibility as Serling. And I would have to say almost ALL books that are created to convey a message are fiction. Even ones that are allegedly non-fiction.

 

Take the Amy Fisher scandal... 3 networks each made a movie about it, and you got basically 3 different stories about the same event. Each from the perspective of Fisher, or Buttofuco, or his wife.

 

A perfect example of where you can't see though someone else's eye's, you can only try and relate to what they are saying by how the story is told, and by who's perspective it is told.

 

So then, who's version do you believe? Authors are the same way, you have to try and relate to the characters mindset, you can't take their word for it, just believe in their message they are trying to convey... In the case of Rand... she has been on the record too many times to count, saying people interpret her writings wrong. Specifically critical of her biggest fans, that being Libretarians.

.

.

[ToriAllen]

No, I said she deserved EQUAL credibility as Serling. And I would have to say almost ALL books that are created to convey a message are fiction. Even ones that are allegedly non-fiction.

In the case of Rand... she has been on the record too many times to count, saying people interpret her writings wrong. Specifically critical of her biggest fans, that being Libretarians.

I completely agree that all writings are skewed through the bias of the author. That is why a person who reads these books takes what they want from them and leaves the rest. That was the problem Rand had with Libertarians. She felt they should either use all or none of her ideas rather than pulling out the ones they agreed with. This doesn't change the fact that her ideas influenced them. There are also subsects of Libertarians the same way there are subsects of Republicans ad Democrats. These subsects generally come from people who choose some beliefs from one party and some from another. My original point was simply that someone who is purely Libertarian will be for freedom of an individual in everyway, including small government, no social interference, and free markets. That is not to say there are not subsects of Libertarians who have adopted Democratic economic views or who have adopted Republican social views, however, this is not the true spirit of the Libertarian Party.

[hugo]

Someone who was a liberal in 1920 would be a conservative in 1960 and a libertarian in 2000 without ever changing his views. When Barry Goldwater (the last libertarian nominee of a major party) won the Republican nomination in 1964 no one knew his views on social issues outside of his civil rights voting record. A man with Goldwaters views on social issues could not win the Republican nomination today. The Republicans long ago stopped being the party of small government and balanced budgets.

 

I believe the original Tea Party were Goldwater/ Paul types. The Tea Party got highjacked by mainstream Republicans which is what the man kicked out is complaining about.

[timesjoke]

The reason the tea party people exist is because of disatisfaction with how the current Government is doing things. Right now the only large group who is universally against what is happening now is the Republicans so it may appear to some that the Republicans are taking over the tea party movement but that is not the case, Republicans are just falling into line with what these people want out of their politicians. I am sure many groups like the Libertarians would like to also gain some traction with the tea party but to be honest, they are way too small on a National scale to be electable in every state. The party members know this and are wanting to support people who can win and toss the idiots out of office, not just talk and end up helping more progressives/socialists get into office by splintering the vote.

 

 

Being divided is what got Obama elected, being divided is what will keep progressives in office.

 

It is time to stop looking for a perfection that will never happen and get behind people who will not vote for things like the recent healthcare bill.

 

 

Progressives/liberals/socialists want conservative minded people to be divived, this is their plan, they add their own comments in support of the most radical elements like Ron Paul because they want votes wasted on idiots like that so that will take away votes for people who could actually beat them. They all stick together, no matter how much anger the Clinton supporters may have had against losing to Obama in the primaries, they still showed up to vote for Obama for President but many conservative minded people did not support McCain. Some say it was out of spite, some even openly supported Obama because they believed his promises to bring people together. But the result was clear, the house was divided, and it did fall.

[hugo]

Amazing how Ronald Reagan managed to win the Presidency despite all those who said he could not win. The TJ of an earlier era who voted for Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976 over Reagan. It is the TJ's who are responsible for our national debt and Obamacare. It was idiots who supported GW's expansion of medicaid that cleared the way for Obamacare. I would love to vote for a Republican again, That is why I am a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Nominate a Reagan, not a Bush.

 

Fiscal conservatives must take the Republican Party back from the socialist social conservatives. It is time to stop voting for wolves in sheep attire.

 

The only thing Obama has to do to get TJ's vote is switch parties.