T.E.A. and Solipsism with Lolita - How Conservatives Killed the T.E.A. Party

[Lando Lincoln]

2009 was eons away politically, and what you joined up for no longer exists as it did when you signed up.

Bingo Luis.  Dead-nuts-on-target.  When the TEA Party arrived, it was borne of fiscal conservatism.  And, I loved it!  It has grossly morphed since then due largely to the SOCONs, but others have had a hand in it as well.  It then merged with the vague and nebulous concept of convenience, RINO - and then equally vague and nebulous judgments and litmus tests were rolled out.  Strident and unbending voices of nobility and purpose finished the bastardization of the TEA Party.

[Bigun]

That's slick. You all do that all the time.
 
When it's time to slam the GOP as a bunch of "RINOs", you all draw a line of distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans.

But when I point out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding the government, suddenly you want to discuss Republicans.

Don't shift the subject back to Republicans when it's suitable.

Please explain to me how this

If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are we wasting out time?

We may as well all just lay down and die.

is pointing out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding government.

And they are not! Liberals, progressives, or whatever they choose to call themselves this week,  both major parties (Democrat and Republican), are responsible for expanding government! Conservatives had nothing to do with it!

[Lando Lincoln]

There are two strong words which are rarely used.

No.

Enough.

Might be time to dust them off?

Wow... a national campaign could be developed from simply those two words.  Well done.

[Lando Lincoln]

TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS

Myst... it could be enough to make me take a long sabbatical.  I have been battling stress and me crossing sabers with other members or witnessing others do it over nonsense just wouldn't be worthwhile to me. 

I will say it again.

The Republicans can nominate a yellow dog and it has my vote.  Not because I necessarily agree with what the Republicans stand for, but I abhor what the Democrats stand for.  Simple.  They must be defeated.  We must win.  Then we go to work fixing stuff.  It will be generational work, but that is the only way.

[Lando Lincoln]

BTW... to my friend Luis.  Thank you for yet another fine composition.  You have contributed mightily of late.  Thank you.

[mystery-ak]

The Republicans can nominate a yellow dog and it has my vote.  Not because I necessarily agree with what the Republicans stand for, but I abhor what the Democrats stand for.  Simple.  They must be defeated.  We must win.  Then we go to work fixing stuff.  It will be generational work, but that is the only way.

Couldn't agree more Lando..

[Lando Lincoln]

Couldn't agree more Lando..

You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process.  I want to rip the voice of the left from the process.  I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance.  Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance.  Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge.  But, Good Lord!  To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad.  We are distorted, upside down and twisted.  White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left.  And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to??  You gotta be kidding me.

Rip the voice from the left.  They will never stop, never quit.  I shall not give them my meager support in any way.

Simple.

[MACVSOG68]

You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process.  I want to rip the voice of the left from the process.  I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance.  Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance.  Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge.  But, Good Lord!  To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad.  We are distorted, upside down and twisted.  White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left.  And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to??  You gotta be kidding me.

Rip the voice from the left.  They will never stop, never quit.  I shall not give them my meager support in any way.

Simple.

Outstanding Lando.  You have spoken for many of us. 

[Lando Lincoln]

Outstanding Lando.  You have spoken for many of us. 

   Damn it Mac... we can distort our thinking, can't we?

[Bigun]

There are two strong words which are rarely used.

No.

Enough.

Might be time to dust them off?

  Brother! 

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Please explain to me how this  is pointing out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding government.

And they are not! Liberals, progressives, or whatever they choose to call themselves this week,  both major parties (Democrat and Republican), are responsible for expanding government! Conservatives had nothing to do with it!

Conservatives are every bit as willing to expand government to implement their agenda, as liberals, progressives, Republicans and Democrats are.

If you wish to think in white hat/black hat terms in the struggle for power that is politics, you are sadly naive.

[Bigun]

Conservatives are every bit as willing to expand government to implement their agenda, as liberals, progressives, Republicans and Democrats are.

If you wish to think in white hat/black hat terms in the struggle for power that is politics, you are sadly naive.

Someone sure as hell is but I don't think it's me!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Bingo Luis.  Dead-nuts-on-target.  When the TEA Party arrived, it was borne of fiscal conservatism.  And, I loved it!  It has grossly morphed since then due largely to the SOCONs, but others have had a hand in it as well.  It then merged with the vague and nebulous concept of convenience, RINO - and then equally vague and nebulous judgments and litmus tests were rolled out.  Strident and unbending voices of nobility and purpose finished the bastardization of the TEA Party.

Faith and patriotism are two incredible sources of income Lando. Ask any preacher or politician.

Both of them will shout "God!" and "Country!" from soapboxes and pulpits as the collections basket navigates the congregations, because they know that because of  the emotions those words generate the very least among us will reach just a little deeper into our thinning purses, for God and country.

Politics today has become the art of motivating one set of people into handing you riches and power by pointing out how bad the other side is.

They, all of them, do that because we have reached a point where solutions to our problems are no longer viable without catastrophic consequences, and pointing out how bad the other guy is is easier than actually trying to fix or mend anything at all.

 

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process.  I want to rip the voice of the left from the process.  I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance.  Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance.  Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge.  But, Good Lord!  To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad.  We are distorted, upside down and twisted.  White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left.  And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to??  You gotta be kidding me.

Rip the voice from the left.  They will never stop, never quit.  I shall not give them my meager support in any way.

Simple.

Nice.

Nice.

Well said.

[speekinout]

Th left has long used emotion to appeal to their loyal voters. That's easier than using logic and fact based arguments. And the response is faster and more intense than you can get by reasoned discussion.
It's always been hard for the GOP to counteract emotion with logic. Now I think there are some on the conservative side who are using emotion based arguments. I suppose those might be more appealing to undecided voters than logic and fact based arguments. They don't do anything for me, but this year I think the most important thing is a huge GOP win in Nov., and I don't care how we get it.
I do think we have to try to get back to discussion and reason, and maybe even - horrors! - compromise when we disagree on an issue. But for now I'll settle for GOP power.

[aligncare]

You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process.  I want to rip the voice of the left from the process.  I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance.  Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance.  Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge.  But, Good Lord!  To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad.  We are distorted, upside down and twisted.  White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left.  And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to??  You gotta be kidding me.

Rip the voice from the left.  They will never stop, never quit.  I shall not give them my meager support in any way.

Simple.

The voice of the Left (from Facebook):



Idealism is the left's stock in trade and Republicans/conservatives with their logic and facts are standing in the way of their utopia.

It's in the DNA, this high-mindedness of theirs. Just as it's in our DNA to move in the real world – not in leftist platitudes, secured by the Founders grand intention for a workable society.

This tension between right and left is the Yin Yang in the body politic that will always be with us.

[olde north church]

1.  I want people in Hell to get glasses of ice water.

2.  Didn't care too much for Lolita during my "counter-culture" book phase of a quarter century ago.  Not "Lolita", not "On The Road", not "Catcher In The Rye".  "Naked Lunch" was interesting but I don't remember if I read it or watched the movie first.
Your comparison was quite good though.

3.  The Leftist plan to expand is based upon building dependence, then using that power to control those who are dependent.  You think they will be using EBT cards to buy beer, Cheetos and TVs in 20 years?  Maybe lentils and kale.
Far as the Right goes, how long before all home schools are required to follow a single curriculum?  More power to the police and other failed law and order complex?

4.  The So-Cons are the LEAST dependable voting bloc.  If the proper overtures are made, I'm betting there are more libertarian/own mind types than Religious Right types.  The ones who take their ball and sulk if they don't get their own way.  We've seen it time and again. 

5.  I would rather have a smaller tent with dependable voters than a large tent filled with people ready to bolt at the slightest slight.

Thanks

[Luis Gonzalez]

Someone sure as hell is but I don't think it's me!

Bush (the guy you and I agreed was the most conservative choice in the 2000 and 2004 elections) increased spending and expanded government with his No Child Left Behind program, his Medicare Part D program. He bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry. In 2001 there were 64,000+ pages of regulations added to the Federal Registry, and another 78,000 were added in 2007.

Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and set the TSA to screen old ladies for fingernail clippers and bottled water.

Conservatives championed the blatantly unconstitutional Federal Defense of Marriage Act and have consistently supported as much pork and corporate welfare as the Democrats. Reagan's Payment-in-Kind program is a perfect example of big agriculture corporate welfare from big government.

Bailouts:

1971 - Nixon bails out Lockheed
1974 - Nixon/Ford bails out the Franklin National Bank
1984 - Reagan assumes 80% share of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co, then sells it off at a loss off $1.1 billion
1989 - Bush the Elder bails out the S&L industry

So yes, conservatives are guilty of government expansionism. Certainly Reagan and Bush II were conservative Presidents by anyone's standard and it was conservatives who drafted and enacted the Federal DoMA, then deemed it a conservative victory.

You can argue (with no retort from me) that liberals expand government to a greater degree than conservatives, but what you CAN'T argue is that conservatives do not expand government themselves.

Unless of course, you opt to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

3.  The Leftist plan to expand is based upon building dependence, then using that power to control those who are dependent.  You think they will be using EBT cards to buy beer, Cheetos and TVs in 20 years?  Maybe lentils and kale.
Far as the Right goes, how long before all home schools are required to follow a single curriculum?  More power to the police and other failed law and order complex?

Amazingly enough, that's the classic crack dealer marketing scheme.

They give crack away to new users to get them hooked and turn them into customers for life.

[Bigun]

Bush (the guy you and I agreed was the most conservative choice in the 2000 and 2004 elections) increased spending and expanded government with his No Child Left Behind program, his Medicare Part D program. He bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry. In 2001 there were 64,000+ pages of regulations added to the Federal Registry, and another 78,000 were added in 2007.

Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and set the TSA to screen old ladies for fingernail clippers and bottled water.

Conservatives championed the blatantly unconstitutional Federal Defense of Marriage Act and have consistently supported as much pork and corporate welfare as the Democrats. Reagan's Payment-in-Kind program is a perfect example of big agriculture corporate welfare from big government.

Bailouts:

1971 - Nixon bails out Lockheed
1974 - Nixon/Ford bails out the Franklin National Bank
1984 - Reagan assumes 80% share of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co, then sells it off at a loss off $1.1 billion
1989 - Bush the Elder bails out the S&L industry

So yes, conservatives are guilty of government expansionism. Certainly Reagan and Bush II were conservative Presidents by anyone's standard and it was conservatives who drafted and enacted the Federal DoMA, then deemed it a conservative victory.

You can argue (with no retort from me) that liberals expand government to a greater degree than conservatives, but what you CAN'T argue is that conservatives do not expand government themselves.

Unless of course, you opt to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Yeah! I know!

The last president to actually CUT government spending - not just reduce the rate of spending growth - was Calvin Coolidge!

And there were Conservatives fighting like hell against everything on your list! There were ZERO Liberals/progressives fighting against ANY of it!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yeah! I know!

The last president to actually CUT government spending - not just reduce the rate of spending growth - was Calvin Coolidge!

And there were Conservatives fighting like hell against everything on your list! There were ZERO Liberals/progressives fighting against ANY of it!

No True Scotsman.

There were NO conservatives fighting against the Federal DoMA.

None.

Zero.

Not a one.

[Bigun]

And WHAT pray tell do you find so very expansive  in that act?

I STILL support it!

[MACVSOG68]

I would rather have a smaller tent with dependable voters than a large tent filled with people ready to bolt at the slightest slight.

Unfortunately the size and makeup of the tent is directly related to election victories.  Reagan Democrats weren't the core of the GOP.  Both parties understand all to well that the indifferent voter is one of the keys to victory.  You might pick him up with specific issues, weariness with the current leadership, or some likeable style of the challenger.

If addressed in a reasonable and knowledgeable manner, todays issues should favor the Republican candidates.  But it's the "I don't vote party; I vote for the candidate" crowd that has to be gathered.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And WHAT pray tell do you find so very expansive  in that act?

Rule #1 of non-expansionism:

The Federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 3

"... the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to define marriage for ANY purpose?

Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.

Rule #1 of conservatism:

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV
Section 1

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 2

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution?

Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.

The Act is expansive in the fact that it usurped traditional State's rights to define what constitutes a marriage by defining the institution at the Federal level. Limiting the Federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution protects the concepts of Federalism and State Sovereignty set in place by the Founders via the Constitution.

BTW, it absolutely ridiculous to maintain that there were any number of conservatives opposing passage of the Federal DoMA, and no liberals opposing it, which is what you said in your usual unsupported blanket statement. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The only Republican member of Congress who voted against the DoMA was Log Cabin Republican Steve Gunderson. Democrats cast 79 votes against the bill with 15 abstentions.

I STILL support it!

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[MACVSOG68]

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution?

I think the DOMA clause was unnecessary, since states already have a public policy exemption.  And the FF&C clause was written primarily for judgments rather than legislation.  Until the USSC invoked the 14th amendment, interracial marriages which were legal in most states were not allowed or recognized in some.  States frequently do not recognize licenses issued by other states, requiring their own standards not the issuing state.

At some point, the SCOTUS may well find that bans on either the issuance of gay marriage licenses or the recognition by other states violates the 14th Amendment.  Only then will the issue be settled.

Next will come other types of marriages, such as between father and daughter, underage, multiple spouses, etc.  What California legalizes may not be recognized in South Carolina.