It's about "fighting socialism" in our own countryWhat are the demographics of today's Protesters Against Obama Care rallying in the Nation's Capitol?
The Wall Street Journal offers a hint from two of their embedded reporters. They road with a group of Tea Partiers all the way from Florida. From Michael M. Phillips and Naftali Bendavid of the WSJ:
The 54 riders on the Tallahassee bus provide a window into the new conservative energy. On the road, they listened to reminiscences of President Ronald Reagan's life, including his battle against Soviet-style communism. It is a fight they say must now be waged at home, against an administration and Congress that is inserting government deeply in banking, car-making and, perhaps, health care.The article goes on to characterize the unifying beliefs of the protesters:
"I can't figure out to save me what [Mr. Obama and the Democrats] are trying to accomplish, unless they want socialism," said 73-year-old Joseph Wright, a retired paper-mill worker.Forty-four of the riders identified themselves as Republicans, with eight independents and two Libertarians. The average age was 56 years old. Fifty-one said they voted for Republican John McCain in his White House bid last year, though several said they did so to support his running mate, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The remaining three riders said they voted for Libertarian Bob Barr.
"The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are spending too much money on programs that insert government too far into people's lives."Mary Mangell, described in the piece as owning a baby-sitting company was quoted:
"There really should be a smaller role for the federal government... Keep it simple. Keep it constitutional."
35 comments:
I'd rather read about libertarian energy, but I guess conservative will suffice. When I think of conservative, I think of sean hannity, who has more respect for authority than for liberty. JMO. My father's generation was like that. May be the term classic liberal will come back in vogue, or may be Eric's beloved Libertarian Republican will take hold. Anyway, I wish them well on their journey.
Even if these Tea Parties aren't Perfect or Ideal in every Respect, it should be remembered that the Process Change and transition NEVER is...whether that is Positive or Negative change.
No doubt, these Tea Parties are a move in the Correct direction for America, the first early steps toward a new and True "Constitutional Conflagration."
The Daily Individualist- A Blog about Liberty and Ideas...through the Individual Spirit of Self-Determination!
I personally know three teabaggers:
One works an a unionized college professor at a state university.
One is a retiree with medical issues who would probably be dead were it not for Medicare.
One is still convinced that Iraq was behind 9/11 and thus eht Iraq war was justified.
"Convinced" that Iraq was behind 9/11.
There's nothing to be convinced about. While Saddam Hussein was not directly involved, there is an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that he sheltered and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists, most especially at two training camps - Answar Al Islam in NW Iraq, and Salmman Pac 20 miles south of Baghdad.
Read the Rich Miniter book "The Shadow War."
He documents at least 40!!! incidents of direct cooperation between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
It's a complete myth that Bin Laden and Hussein were foes. They were not only cooperative partners, but indeed behind the scenese friends.
Do your research!!!!!!
"I personally know three teabaggers:"
Come now. I'm quite sure a pseudonymous shit stain such as yourself knows more than three testicle suckers. I'll bet you know dozens.
Birds of a feather and all...
@ccoffer: Go fuck your mother...that is if you can get the time to slip it in between all the other fellas' turns.
I'll bet you're even more intelligent in person. Brave too.
Don't you go changing, Citizen Shitstain.
Yes, and verbally abusing somebody on a blog becaure their opinion may differ from yours, while hiding behind a screen name like 'ccoffer' is the epitome of intelligence and bravery, right?
@Citizen Cain
Chuck wasn't too harsh, and from what I know of him, he probably was trying to be funny too. Seriously though, Chuck is a nicer guy than most know from what I have ascertained and while he can be strong worded and even caustic at times, if you treat him with respect, he returns the favor. If you are going to argue with him, use facts and logic, and you will be fine. Leave the ad hominem crap at home.
@RightGuy: Fair enough, but what about my first post was so offensive that I deserved his verbal diarrhea? My point was that it seems to me that many of the tea party protesters--including the few that I personally know--are railing against government spending on things with which they disagree, while at the same time benefiting from certain other government programs...Hypocrites in other words.
Lets be honest, there are two types of marriages: Civil and religious. The civil license one gets recognizes a marriage for legal purposes to do with property and succession/probate etc. The religious one is before god and your church. The later has been an institution for millennia without regard to government. I would ask chuck, should we consider them as one, or two? Our government is a secular institution that upholds secular civil law. The church upholds, or should, god's law. Some fall short. @ Citizen Cain, if we are to live in a Jeffersonian democracy where our rights are constrained by the equal rights of others, then you have an argument. On the other hand, once someone tries to impede or disregard someone's natural right, like that of religion, then they are stepping over the line. Do we preempt that by denying them the same rights? Here's the thing: Civill marriage isn't a natural right as it is regulated by the state governments and people can be denied gay or not.
What I think Chuck is getting at, without admitting it, is that homosexual marriage is an end run around our first amendment rights with regards to religion because they want to make change there as well. Honestly, to me the marriage license I got from the government is no more important in some ways than a building permit. Any vows I made were in a church and that is where it matters.
So where are we? Who wins in this Eric and Cain? I might be ok with a bone smoker getting a permit to marry from the government, but as soon as they cross the line to change what happens in my church, it'll be a problem. To do otherwise would be preemptive, although Eric likes preemptive action. :) Ultimately, Chuck could say that we have to answer to a higher law, and may be he's right. I guess I'll have to wait for the final exam to find out.
"Yes, and verbally abusing somebody on a blog becaure their opinion may differ from yours,"
When you begin your idiotic rant by referring to the people protesting a Marxist takeover of their country as ball-suckers, I could give a shit what your supposed "opinion" is because you've already announced that you are a brainless asshole.
You bring nothing of value to this discussion. You are a self-important child.
Right Guy,
My position isn't nearly as complicated as you seem to suggest. Marriage simply is what it is and isn't what it isn't. Government has neither the ability nor the authority to define its fundamental nature. They might as well pass a law declaring the end of gravity. Gravity will go right on being gravity just as marriage will go right on being marriage despite what some douchebag politician has to say about it on television.
This has more to do with reality than legality.
"Lets be honest, there are two types of marriages: Civil and religious. "
No. And that is what I'm trying to help you people understand. There is ONE kind of marriage in this country and it involves a man and a woman joining together. This has dick shit to do with religion. The fact that some greasy-ass mooslim potentate can "marry" an 8 year old girl back in the shitbag country of his birth doesn't mean he can do it here. Why? Because MARRIAGE HAS A DEFINITION HERE and an old man fucking a little girl doesn't fall under it.
This isn't complicated. You can "marry" a fucking armadillo in India if you want, but you can't here because we have a definition of marriage that predates the existence of the filthy-ass federal government and armadillo poking doesn't fall under that definition.
I call them teabaggers because last April they were tossing teabags around. What the hell are you talking about?
Well Chuck, pragmatically, our society has two sides to marriage, and as far as the definition of marriage, when this country started, the church pretty much proscribed what it was and what it isn't before the government put formal law on paper So how far do you want to go back? Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, Australopithecus? What I think you are saying is that the normal way to procreate (actually the only way for humans) is to have a male and female. Touché. Unfortunately we live in an society with ever increasing regulations that wants to tell us what to do, what not to do and when, where, why and how to do it and it's ever increasingly by the few at the expense of the many. I suppose with less regulation and government, it becomes obvious to what works and what doesn't if you know what I mean. Religions generally have recognized that until recently.
I did a little digging and I found Ayn Rand's position on homosexuals and feminism. It's quite interesting:
In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays which attacked feminism and the sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. Rand called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She addressed homosexuality in the course of an attack on feminism, writing that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print."[1]
In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her views in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then added that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3]
For someone that is liked by those in the libertarian movement, she has some rather conservative ideals.
"So how far do you want to go back?"
You aren't paying attention. I don't need to "go back". The definition of marriage is real and it is concrete. No "going back" is necessary. If that real, concrete and painfully obvious definition that was around long before you were is to be radically altered, then it can only legitimately be done with the consent of the American people and NOT by some gang of strangers in black dresses. What you are talking about involves the invention of something which has NEVER existed. Its not a "right". Its a fucking fantasy. A figment.
What part of this are you unable to understand?
"I call them teabaggers because last April they were tossing teabags around."
I so tire of you fucking assclowns. You lie then lie again and then lie some more for good measure. Its telling that you fucks have no names, no honor and no ability to actually debate a particular topic. All you can muster is a flaming bag of dogshit on the proverbial front porch.
I daily thank my Creator for my enemies. Without you scum I might forget the beauty and righteousness of that which I defend.
"I did a little digging and I found Ayn Rand's position on homosexuals and feminism. It's quite interesting:"
I'll never understand why so many folks refer to Rand as though she were some magical prophet. She wrote a few good books, but any honest assessment of who she was reveals her to be a thoroughly repugnant human being. Give me Milton Friedman any day. Rand was a fucking lunatic.
"What I think you are saying is that the normal way to procreate (actually the only way for humans) is to have a male and female."
Why do you think I'm saying something I never addressed? You're stuffing a whole lot of shit in the suitcase, dude. I've made it a point to read you carefully. You seem to be just making stuff up. I don't have to rely on any procreation arguments or religious arguments. Marriage is what it is. It isn't what it isn't.
I'm more than eager to explore any line of reasoning you wish to introduce to this discussion, but my stance is brutally simple: a=a
BTW:
Right Guy, are you at all a fan of Peter McWilliams? He really infected my thinking way back. He wrote some truly disgusting things, but he was pretty much an honest guy.
Just curious.
@chuck
I need a reason other than it is because someone said so or that is the way it is. I like to have a rational reason and understand it's causality.
Rand would have been revolted at anyone thinking she was magical. Milton Friedman was a genius.
If you reasoning is a=a, then show me your reasoning.
Never heard of the guy, but I like Robert Nozick.
"I need a reason other than it is because someone said so or that is the way it is."
Uggh. What side of the road do you drive on?? Why not change? After all, its your car.
Right?
You are intentionally avoiding the obvious, friend.
The reason I drive on the right side of the road is to avoid head on collisions. If I was in England or Australia, I would drive on the left for the same reason.
Never heard of Peter McWilliams?? Shit, man. He was sort of a big deal. Prolific writer. Very much the libertarian iconoclast. Big pro-pot advocate. He was also not just gay, but fabulously glory-hole gay. He died of AIDS. He basically drowned in his own vomit cuz the federalies took away his medicinal dope.
He was also a big time proselytizer. His theory was that Christ Jesus was a homo, and that he and the 12 were basically engaged in an extended gay orgy.
Anyway, the guy was a great writer and also a genuinely good person despite his desperate need to justify his own shortcomings. I highly recommend his work.
best,
Chuck
"The reason I drive on the right side of the road is to avoid head on collisions. If I was in England or Australia, I would drive on the left for the same reason."
In other words, you are decent enough to understand that you have no individual right to shit on their traditions. You will obey their traffic tradition regardless of your "individual" notions of which side of the road is the one you have a "right" to drive on.
Good on ya.
Understand chuck that I am a curious sort and an engineer by nature. I like to take things apart, see how they work and put them back together. I have done it with cars, and now I don't need to deconstruct them as I know enough about how they work. This applies to most things in my life, for good or for bad. It also makes me an annoying questioning fuck at times. If you think I am too questioning here, you should here me with my priest...
"If you reasoning is a=a, then show me your reasoning."
Y'know, you are someone for whom I have respect, which is why it hurts my feelings when you pull these sorts of stunts.
Reasoning? My reasoning is that you know good and goddam well what the definition of marriage is in the United States of America. You know what it is now and you know good and fucking well what it always has been. If you respond to this by claiming through some bullshit, self-serving semantic head fake, you don't know; I can only take it as an expression of total contempt.
Don't insult my intelligence. You only embarrass yourself in the process.
Yours in earnest,
Chuck
Yes, I know what a=a is and I meant no contempt. Read my previous post.
Jim
I did. It posted while I was writing.
Best to you and yours,
Chuck.
"Rand would have been revolted at anyone thinking she was magical."
The witch doctor versus the Hun? Heehee!
Post a Comment