Wednesday, September 8, 2010

The Death of 2H1P

There is a pitched battle going on RIGHT NOW within the Republican party. The drubbing that that the GOP took in 2008 has seriously loosened the grip that the social conservatives had on the party - may they lose their hands attempting to hold on. The Libertarian wing is in full throttle... and the folks running the 2 headed, one party ("2H1P" Feel free to use that moniker - it is original to yours truly) system are completely freaked - and that's what's up with the disinformation campaign in the media. The special interests being fed at the cost of our very Republic would rather see your house burn and your children starve and America at war for generations than give up their place at the trough and at the alter of power.

How is it that Glen Beck is a "Corn Pone Nazi"? And Sarah Palin? She has star power for raising money and awareness... why shouldn't she contribute? Do not think for a moment that she has a shot at winning in Iowa or New Hampshire... The Left and the Media know this, but it is in their best interests to discredit Libertarianism using Palin. its just sooooo easy for the establishment 2H1P to tar the entire Libertarian movement with her missteps from the 2008 campaign. The 2H1P has no other options right now. They cannot point to any accomplishments. They MUST run a propaganda campaign discrediting the Libertarians.

For you disbelieving Lefties... the U.S. is a REPUBLIC. Why do you believe what the MEDIA says?The makeup of the electorate matters much less than the makeup of the electoral bodies. Now, take a look at the platforms/agendas of those Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian nominees that have quite successfully cut the establishment Republicans off at the knees. What do you see in this that would lead the media and the Left's Blogsphere to make such outrageous claims? I will tell you. They see a freight train coming straight at them.

Remember Y2K? Well, welcome to "The Death of 2H1P".

46 comments:

bureaucrat said...

The Republican party, the Tea Baggers, the Libertarians, and the hard-core Christians are all, together, running up against that awful wall known as reality -- and that's why they will ultimaltely lose.

The Republicans want low taxes AND high government spending. They favor Federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Defense AND Interest (cause they own the bonds). The Tea Partiers want the 1950s back, when the whites ruled and the darkies knew their place (impossible due to peak oil). The Libertarians think that everyone is wrong but them. And the Christians can't reconcile hurricanes and earthquakes with God loving all of us.

You can watch in living color as these delusional groups slowly implode. The Democrats may not be all right, but we are more right. :)

Anonymous said...

Bur,

The Republicans you talk about are the ones getting the boot. The Tea Partiers and Libertarians want less government, less spending, and lower taxes. And, why do you pull the F#*@ing race card all the time? What is with that? Look at your beloved Democrats. Listen to the Revs. Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson. When they show up at the Democrat convention, they are lauded as leaders of the civil rights movement. They say the same crap that White Supremacist scum say with the colors reversed, except that ALL of them hate the Jews.

The Democrats are the party of racial quotas and preferences. They are the ones interested in skin color ad nauseum. Explain to me how unity is to achieved by dividing us into groups?

You insult me and disgrace yourself.

L'shana tova.

Sincerely,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

If David Duke showed up at the Republican Convention, he'd be thrown out on his a$$. What's wrong with the Democrats?

Regards,

Coal Guy

tweell said...

I'm not so hopeful that the 2H1P is going down. The Republican national party apparatchiks are holding on to power even when their hand-picked 'moderates' are being defeated, and seem quite interested in keeping the Democrats in power.

Anonymous said...

Yep Tweel,

Two heads, one party. I hope the Republican elite are overwhelmed in the next few years. The grass roots have been holding their noses for years now. If it talks like a Democrat and votes like a Democrat...

Regards,

Coal Guy

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Coal Guy! L'shana Tova!

Tweel:

You are SO right about the establishment Repubs... they were even using Republican Senatorial Trust money to try to defeat challenges at the primary level... now that is freaking out of bounds. That money was given to defeat DEMOCRATS, not help sitting Senators defeat primary challenges.

My larger point was that the Libertarian WIng of the Republican party, sooooo looooong in hibernation is now ascendent - and there really is the chance that they wrest the party from the knuckleheads.

My bet is we have 5 or 6 Libertarian Senators in the Senate in January. This is the real thing.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Tweel et al...

No matter what, its the end of 2H1P... what comes after is the issue.

Donal Lang said...

The view from over the Pond is more about the lack of serious politics going down in the US today; you guys are in a financial crisis of your own making, and whatever the elected Government try to do is blocked by the opposition, even if they would do the same! Nothing has been done to curtail the banks or solve the initial problem; the barn door is still wide open! There is NOTHING to stop the same banking crisis happening all over again as soon as the markets plummet again.

And if you think that Teabaggers and Sarah Palin are positives, then truly there is no hope for you.

Oh well, you can always count on the Second Coming to save your sorry asses!

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Donal:

If that is the view, those folks need glasses.

There is a very serious threat to the status quo afoot, right now and as we speak. That threat is by no means assured of victory... but it is there nonetheless. The problem with the view from across the pond is that the view is supplied by the media... the same s**t stain media that we have.

Donal Lang said...

Sarah Palin has the IQ of a lettuce, but worse than that, she doesn't know it. That means if she gets elected (god forbid!)she'll be manipulated by others with a hidden agenda - so much for democracy.
The Teabaggers 'policies' are a joke and will drive the economy into a 50 year recession with or without Peak Oil, and along the way probably create local civil wars between spanish speaking, black, and other ethnic groups.

The good news is that no extreme party succeeds in getting a serious majority in a democracy so, as the Republicans are dumping their more moderate politicians, they are also dumping any chance of real political success. Although in the mid-terms they may get what seems like a strong vote because of continuing recession and dissatisfaction, that is a long way from wielding power.

But hey; what do us Europeans know?

tweell said...

Mr. Lang, what the media is telling you is nowhere near the truth. The Tea Party doesn't care about sex, color, orientation, just about less government and lower taxes. This isn't 'social conservatism' (gag). It's about getting government out of our lives and our wallets.
The media has worked hard on presenting an image of angry white men. Funny, they even cropped the video of an armed Tea Party man (Arizona rally) to hide that he's black. Spanish civil war? The American hispanics want the illegals gone more than anyone (we can't put them together in prison, more trouble than white/black by far).
Since when did lowering taxes and limiting government depress the economy anywhere? Please educate me if I'm wrong.
The media also hates Palin with a passion, and has done everything they can to make her an untouchable. Take a look at what she did as the governor of Alaska. Limiting government, rooting out corruption and crony capitalism, no wonder powerful folks hate her. Then listen to her talk, not just the twisted soundbites. She isn't perfect, I really wish she hadn't gone national so soon, but still...

bureaucrat said...

Just how much lettuce can your party stand before it collapses onto itself?

It wasn't me who mentioned that the Tea Partiers had a race problem. It was in the news last week. TPs are predominately white, older and well-off. They like the idea of the good old days coming back. But their big Achilles heel is that they say they want less government, less borrowing, fewer deficits and taxes. Problem is .. the government spending is on the Tea Partiers THEMSELVES!

Where do you think the Social Security, Medicare, Interest payments and Defense spending (the rich own the company shares) land? TPs are all hypocrites, even tho their basic slogan of less deficit spending is right on.

The Libertarians cannot function in a country like ours. For all your hatred of government, the average American still trusts the government implicitly, or at least trust in the ability to be heard and have things changed if need be.

Dextred1 said...

Bur,

What reality? The one that says socialism collapses society? If you would stop jerking off and start paying attention you would clearly see that the dems policies have failed, period. NO argument. The "messiah" and his party are about to get boot stomped in the mid terms. Good bit of race baiting though!! YOu are getting good at it, maybe you could join the president as a official spokesmen. I think you are just getting nervous about upcoming elections. :)

Donal,

A European socialist calling Americans "Tea baggers". Don't say you’re not (Marx fan, inheritance tax and now your typical lefty fringe talk).
Why would low taxes and small government fail? Because it is plain to anybody willing to look above personal bias that it works whenever it is tried.

Anonymous said...

I observe the insanity of divide and conquer propoganda and have to agree that Sarah Palin is not a good front person for libertarianism. She ran with Jon McCain of all people--a Republican so far from Libertarian its crazy. We had a pretty Libertarian candidate named Ron Paul, who is a smart fella, whereas people went wow over Mrs. Palin? Me thinks people like the way she looks more than anything, she didn't even finish one term of elected office. How about someone with some salt and true anti-establishment independent credentials like Jesse Ventura?

If people are really impressed with Sarah Palin quitting her day job to get super rich pandering with amazingly simplistic slogans, then clearly a 3rd party has no hope in the future. She's been quite pro-war, and was throughout the election cycle, not a very libertarian approach... So she makes a ton of money on the Tea-Party circuit, and her kid gets 50k a talk for getting knocked up and famous--wow.

I'm all for Libertarianism-lite, but so many people that now make this claim are just Beck/Palin-ites who follow the cult of personality, rather than the idealism of Liberty. I run into people all the time that tell me they are now Libertarian, they nearly all voted for Jon McCain, and don't like Ron Paul because he's "anti-war" and "doesn't support the troops". This is just one big joke, the United States of Entertainment.

-Meiyo

PioneerPreppy said...

It isn't the die hard republicans that are turning it is the Libertarians who were in the republican party and the Independents that will sway the vote.

You think Palin is a veg head? LOL the fact is the lefty media hates Palin because she is a woman plain and simple. The toxic environment the Democrats have created has left the conservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalist and right leaning democrats only one option and that is to spearhead with a female figure. Only a woman like Palin or the Arizona Governor can get away with it since like Bur every democrat screams racist at the drop of a hat. I am sure Palin won't be chosen to run but she has the honor of being the major sounding board at the moment.

Not only do I agree with Greg's prediction I will greet with glee another side effect of the democratic parties' embrace of radical racism politics. Come November you will see more democrats vote republican then ever in history.

What has gone un-noticed is the loss of prominent conservative democrats and the white boy democrats who used to vote for the party that have finally seen the light.

Dextred1 said...

Why does everyone have to be a pure this or that? I am conservative on some issues, libertarian on others. The constitutional was not forged between small government and big government, but between a very limited government (libertarian More Jefferson) and a conservative limited government (Madison). The founders never imagined the leviathan that we now call the U.S. Government. It was not until the progressives in the mid 1890's did the government even try to collect taxes except from tariffs and land sales.

The social issue problem is a result of the destruction of state rights. If federalism could flourish in a nation that was based on it, the states would independently vote on things like gay right, abortion, probations on drugs, social programs etc. The problem for the Left is obvious though, they will have nothing to run on. The left needs these programs to beat the right over the head and pay back donors with funding. SEE, SEE they hate "insert group"(gays, blacks, poor, kids, blah, blah, blah)

Bur would say then there would be no programs. NO Bur the states would run them, what an innovative Idea. The best part is states have to balances budgets and as such this trash would go away.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Palin is a non event politically! Non Event!

The Left needs to pillory her and motivate their base that a female gun toting beauty might be president.

The Left knows full well that Palin has absolutely NO SHOT of taking Iowa and New Hampshire or any of the early states... NO SHOT whatsoever! So what the hell are they talking about? Propaganda.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Were Ron Paul younger and taller he might have been president. It is still a beauty contest.

My bet is Romney will turn hard Libertarian - if he does, he wins walking away. Pro-Life and Hardcore Libertarian would be unbeatable by Obama if unemployment is where it is now. Its just the electoral math.

PioneerPreppy said...

Palin is a cheerleader. I actually think she knows that deep down. She maybe hoping it will lead to more but I suspect she knew resigning as governor and becoming a TV talking head was going to take her off the serious list like it did Hucklebee.

I honestly think she rather enjoys being a cheerleader more than being in charge.

Perhaps we haven't seen the real challenger come up yet. I just want to see what really happens Nov. 2nd after that the real bets will hit the table.

Anonymous said...

The 'horse race' aspect to politics just holds no appeal to me, yet this is often what passes as political debate--particularly on television.

In regards to Mr. J's comment about Ron Paul, he wasn't going to win--because a huge portion of republicans and many self labeled libertarians, cherry pick their 'small gov't' rhetoric to exclude military. I watched every republican primary debate, and Ron Paul was booed in nearly everyone of them for his stand on the wars. The rest of the stage would typically tag team him to show their patriotic zeal for promoting the empire.

At this point I find it just another form of entertainment--who gets to be the Captain of the US titanic and debate how the deck chairs are going to be arranged--when lifeboats are what is needed. This 2p1p System will continue to make people angry and use emotional fallacies and play off what marketers and psychological research has well establish, as Freud Said, the rational self is merely the tip of the iceburg. Emotions rule the day, and Limbic responses will be the demise of this incarnation of civilization, only time will tell what the transition looks like--but it certainly won't be pretty as humans follow the path to hedonistic imperative becomes less about porn/TV and more about food/potable water and security.

-Meiyo

Anonymous said...

If you are going to delete comments because someone was called a "zombie", you should probably do the same when people are called the much more offensive "teabagger".

I'm just sayin'.

Donal Lang said...

Tweel; when the hurricane hit New Orleans the better-off had escaped and the poor were left behind. What colour were they?

Poverty is a race issue.

When illegals are caught, what language do they speak?

Immigration is a race issue.

When the US government goes to war, what demographic signs up to go to fight?

War is a poverty issue.

When schools fail because of lack of state or government funding and low standards, is it the rich or poor that suffer most? Is it the blacks or whites?

Education is a race and poverty issue.

When 30% of the population have no medical cover, and almost any illness drives them into poverty or bankruptcy, is that the poorest 30% of society? Predominantly, what colour are they?

Healthcare is a seriously political issue.

Which of the above could NOT be an excuse for civil strife?

Politics is more complicated than you seem to think. There's no such thing as,'just about low taxes'!

Anonymous said...

Donal,

It was a black Democrat mayor and a Democrat governor that refused federal aid and left the poor in New Orleans.

The worst schools are in Democrat dominated cities.

The biggest and worst slums are in Democrat dominated cities. In every area where the Democrats hold sway on the local level, things get worse and worse. Their crap doesn't work. The Democrat elite talk a good line, but the reality of the failure is just plain obvious. They really don't give a fart about their constituents other than to buy their votes.

Regards,

Coal Guy

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Meiyo:

Your point is well made - and received.

There is no love lost between me and my ilk and the "social conservative" (social controllers) Republicans.

You've been here a while. You gotta know that I completely reject empire. There are many, many, many like me... but the folks making their living from empire are likely to be more vocal and visible at those moments than those toiling elsewhere.

The larger point is is that that is changing.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Donal:

I must say, as kindly as I can, that I am surprised at how much you seem to agree with the propaganda being shoveled your way.

The points you make are specious at best - but if you actually believe that stuff, what would be the point of debating it?

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Donal:

People, regardless of color, are responsible for themselves.

Look at the Asian experience in America (my wife is Asian). Irrespective of my circumstances, Asians do not assimilate much more than American Jewery. Both groups are THRIVING without the approval of the majority. Both groups are underrepresented in violent crime, alcoholism, divorce, etc...

Coincidence?

Donal Lang said...

Coal Guy; you're reversing cause and effect. Of course any underclass will vote for the party that votes them healthcare etc.

Greg; Its not specious to recognise that some people are ambitious and hungry and do well, and some are less able and hungry and perhaps die. Yes, the Asians who get to America do well, but there is an element of pre-selection there! Go to India and you may notice one or two poor people there! Would America let them in? No, of course not.

You and I are intelligent, capable and ambitious and are capable of doing well. Politics defines whether you say, 'We are one society and I'll help those less able', or Fuck you, get out of my way'.

The American constitution was based on the French revolutionary statement of Liberty, Egality and Fraternity. You want the Liberty, you want the Egality to make or to inherit lots of money, and the Fraternity? Ih well, lets just forget about that one.

America wanted independance from Britain because of the excesses of the English aristocracy, and now you are politically defending the Wall St and Hollywood aristos obscene resources grab. The basis of revolution is inequality.

You see it as left wing -right wing. I see it as level playing field, and a shared humanity. But at the same time I DON'T agree with handouts, or welfare, or even disability, for people who can work but are too lazy to get off their fat arses, and in European terms I'd certainly be called Libertarian (minimal government eand taxes) so be careful of the assumptions you make about me.

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...

Donal,
You create a false dichotomy. The question is not whether to help people, but who and how. The traditional way is that people help from charity. The right and especially the Christian right blows every other group in the world away with their charity. Don’t think so, do some research. I and my ilk do are talking with our own time and money. The left does theirs with paid staff and public money. This is a major difference.

Did French philosophers have input into the minds of founders yes, but it is an absolutely absurd statement that we based our principles on anything like the secular revolution that happened in France. The most quoted statements from the founders had their foundation in to areas Moses law and Hengist & Horsa who introduced the peoples law in the 450’s in England. These two groups were on the proposed original seal by Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

The mosaic system started with a family the father was judge in dispute, then if it was between families there was a judge between the groups of ten families (60,000 groups of 10 families) Then 12,000 groups of 50 families, then 6000 groups of 100 families, then 600 groups of 1000 families, then elected representatives (house of representatives), then council of seventy (similar to senate), then Aaron/Joshua, and finally Moses. This vertical structure is very similar to what we call federalism. The founders used this formula for the formation of the government.

The “all men are created equal” is a Judea Christian Idea that all men were created in the Image of God and hence had equal rights. The Mosaic Law was based on this. Do not steal is in the positive the right to own things, do not murder is in the positive the right to life, etc The French revolution was the complete opposite. It was based on the idea that government and religion cannot coexist. The founders implored us not to go to the modern day left. Thomas Paine was in France encouraging the revolution and was thoroughly disgusted with what the final result was.

The utopian schemes of leveling {re-distribution of wealth} and a community of goods {central ownership of means of production and goods}, are as visionary and impractical as those that vest all property in the crown. Quotes his
Samuel Adams

They took from Cicero the Idea that the “natural law” was eternal and unchangeable. Cicero thought that building a society on right rules and conduct was easy if you identify what the creator built. A fundamental presupposition of natural law is that reason is something we are given by our creator which separates us from all other living things. He defined natural law a “true law” because it was not in conflict with Gods law.

The French revolution was based on jealousy, envy and secular humanist motives. The left vs. right was invented during the French revolution. The supporters of the king lined up on the right of parliament and the supporters of the revolution lined up on the left of the king. You are tying yourself in knots Donal. These two nations were found on completely different foundations. Ours has lasted 200 plus yrs, while the French government fails every 50 or so. Ours is a Judea/Christian constitutional republic while there’s was an arbitrary and capriccios secular humanists pure democracy. Much, much, much different.

Dextred1 said...

not to mention that constitution was written in 1887 and the french revolution was in 1889.

Anonymous said...

Donal,

In many of these places, the Democrats have been in power for decades. In the case of New Orleans, it has been over 70 uninterrupted years. Yes, the poor vote for those who promise them things. But, why haven't the Democrats improved things? How long until we see results? It ought to be a worker's paradise by now.

Regards,

Coal Guy

tweell said...

[Tweel; when the hurricane hit New Orleans the better-off had escaped and the poor were left behind. What colour were they?]
The same color as their incompetent corrupt government. The same color as the folks in Mississippi who got hit as hard or harder, but dealt and rebuilt instead of sitting on their ass whining for the 'guvment to hep them'.

[Poverty is a race issue.] Poverty is a CULTURAL issue.

[When illegals are caught, what language do they speak?] Overwhelmingly Spanish, the language of the failed states to the south of the US, who can keep their corrupt governments afloat because they export their unhappy young men north and get lots of money sent back - illegals mailing money home is the second largest (just behind oil) contributor to Mexico's GDP.

[Immigration is a race issue.] Wrong, culture again!

[When the US government goes to war, what demographic signs up to go to fight?] Overwhelmingly white here. Blacks and hispanics will more often make a career out of the military, and are found in supply and support. The 1-2 enlistment guys who are at the tip of the spear? White men who then get out and go to college.

[War is a poverty issue.] Al Gore is a veritable fountain of misinformation, this is one of his memes that has been proven false. His claims were broadcast and repeated, the truth somehow doesn't get air time.

[When schools fail because of lack of state or government funding and low standards, is it the rich or poor that suffer most? Is it the blacks or whites?] Money spent has very little correspondence with education provided. Washington D.C. spends over $10k a year per student, yet their students fail miserably. You have an inkling of the truth when you mention standards, though. School standards come from the teachers somewhat, but mainly from the parents. If the parents don't care about education, treat school as a free childcare facility or demand that their precious offspring be promoted regardless of their knowledge and effort, the school will be terrible.

[Education is a race and poverty issue.] Bzzt! Culture AGAIN!

[When 30% of the population have no medical cover, and almost any illness drives them into poverty or bankruptcy, is that the poorest 30% of society? Predominantly, what colour are they?]
Hoo boy, and you talk about me being simple? 30% of Americans don't have medical coverage, there's the factoid. They're overwhelmingly working adults that could get insurance and could afford it, but are choosing not to in order to spend their money elsewhere. Face it, folks 18-55 don't need much in medical care unless they have an accident or lose the genetic lottery. They're betting that they'll be okay (this includes a couple adult daughters of mine).

[Healthcare is a seriously political issue.] Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

[Which of the above could NOT be an excuse for civil strife?] Actually, culture has been a dandy excuse for civil strife and war, no question there. The problem is that the government has stopped the American cultural 'melting pot' by providing encentives to stay separate. This is excellent for 'divide and rule' progressives, not so good for the country. The way to fix this is to remove the ability of the government to provide those encentives. Pruning the government back to its' Constitutional functions and reducing the money available for it to spend will do that. Well, well, isn't that 'shrink government and lower taxes'? Hmm.

[Politics is more complicated than you seem to think. There's no such thing as,'just about low taxes'!] Oh, it isn't a panacea, but those don't exist in the real world. It won't be easy, either. I haven't seen a better idea, though. Do you have one?

tweell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Given the gigantic US debt how can low taxes be an option? Doesn't it have to be paid off?

tweell said...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
'In 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote: "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." Exercising his understanding that "73% of nothing is nothing", he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24% (as well as tax breaks for lower brackets). Personal income-tax receipts rose from US$719 million in 1921 to over $1 billion in 1929, an average increase of 4.2% per year over an 8-year period, which supporters attribute to the rate cut.'

Cut taxes, cut government spending more. Presto - money to pay off debt!

Anonymous said...

On another note, that Koran burning church is certainly getting world-wide attention--seems that the parades of flag burnings and death to Christians has started in advance of this 9/11 stunt.

It's really amazing how motivating hate/anger is--its truly an amazing emotion it drives much of human behavior. Guess it will be an interesting news cycle weekend if that fella decides to do through with it. Supposedly the FBI has met with him and the local law enforcement are tallying up bills for their increased security to give him. Didn't know that they could charge someone/ a church or group for security on private property--vs. a public event?

-Meiyo

Anonymous said...

Tweell Was that not a bubble period with unsustainable growth and would a rapidly growing economy not be a requirment for lowering taxes and still having an increase in tax revenues? Seems to me that this blog is all about the end of growth as we know it. What happened in the 1930's? Government expenditures need to be reduced but the debt is still there.

Dextred1 said...

Anon,

It depends what you mean by a bubble. If a bubble is the largest growth period since the industrial revolution, yes it was a small bubble(we actually call this a expansion because they actually made things). Sales of cars went up exponentially, electricity usage went up over 100%.(over 300% since 1900) The stocks that went up the most were electric utilities, radios, and autos. My point being that it was not a bubble like the internet because there was a lot of underlying value in the corporations. If you look back at it cool cal did a great job with the economy, not so good with other executive level departments. Hoover was the fool that started raising spending, then the smoot-Hawley tariff passed and then back came the progressive policy’s that Wilson used during the war. All periods of expansion have a down period every 5 to 10 yrs. That is just the nature of a free market. Does not mean it was a bubble.

Dextred1 said...

Meiyo,

I don't really understand the unneeded provocation, but the reason we have the right to free speech is exactly for incendiary religious and political ideas. It is funny the left jumps on this guy for this, but supports the exact same thing pertaining to the building of the mosque. They are both legal, but legality and intentional provocation are different.

Anonymous said...

Don't get too excited about a few "Tea Partiers" getting elected this time around. The same thing happened to Bill Clinton and he won by an overwhelming majority in 1996. There is no Tea Party, they are a bunch of extremist clowns going nowhere. Sarah Palin is nothing but an opportunist milking the attention she is getting. She is almost as bad as the lunatic Pastor who was going to burn the Koran to get a little attention.

PioneerPreppy said...

Some amazingly well thought out points and comments Dex and Tweell.

Very enjoyable after work reading today.

Well spoken.

Anonymous said...

If the Republicans were smart they would try to move more to the center and stop saying that cutting taxes will magically solve all the problems in the universe. Extremists occassionally win a few seats in Congress but it never goes any further. There have been many libertarians who have run for President and never garnished any more than one or two percent of the vote. A smart, charismatic centrist Republican would likely defeat Obama in 2012 but there aren't any. So the party will move further to the right until it self destructs.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:32AM

Tell me how the Republicans can move further to the center and not be hard core Socialists? They have been spending like the Democrats. GWB went to Latin America and spouted all over the place about social justice. He is considerably to the left of JFK from what I can see. The two parties seem to be left of center and way left of center. The movement in the Republican party is to move to a more normal conservative stance. There is a rising recognition in this country that all that government spending is not doing much good. Those of us that work, obey the law and pay our taxed are feeling like nothing but pack mules for the 2H1P Elite and those they pander to. The times, they are a changin'. I'm hoping that the Republicans move toward fiscal conservatism and back away from the social conservatism. If not, there may well be a third party.

Even if the fiscal conservatives can't gain political traction, the $200,000,000,000,000 unfunded liability will take the system down. Imagine, the government has promised $666,666.66 to each and every one of us that it has not funded. It can't possibly be paid and it won't be.

Regards,

Coal Guy

PioneerPreppy said...

Those of you ranting against the Tea Party seem to be missing the point.

It isn't a political party it is a sectional movement and these movements have created some major political shake up's in American History and many others as well.

It is going to be very interesting to watch it play out.

Dextred1 said...

Anon,

Try using facts to back up your assertions. IT's harder because you can't be lazy. Everyone here is pretty good at real debating. If you have a problem with the laffer curve find a study that disagrees. If you think a high tax environment has a higher multiplier effect than low tax give some facts to back it up. Until then you sound like a drone, spewing what others say.