From what I understand of Libertarianism, I get the impression that the expression of Libertarianism by some who apply the label to themselves has changed as much as the concept itself is misunderstood. It has become more political for one thing and less philosophical. In some cases I get the feeling that the original sense of responsibility implicit in true libertarianism has been thinned out by certain people who would use it for personal desires or so-called freedoms- not all, of course, but maybe enough to change how it is viewed.
There is plenty of truth in the statement above. The responsibility part does seem to be often forgotten.
Agreed. Many of these tea-party whiners were the same ones mindlessly droning out "you should support your president" or "you should support your troops" in response to anti-war dialogue during bush/Cheney.
When it's a white republican president it's "you're not being a team player" and when its a black democrat it's all the sudden "don't tread on me".....
Where was that crap when the Patriot act was being passed?
This is pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.
As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.
And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?
Agreed. Many of these tea-party whiners were the same ones mindlessly droning out "you should support your president" or "you should support your troops" in response to anti-war dialogue during bush/Cheney.
When it's a white republican president it's "you're not being a team player" and when its a black democrat it's all the sudden "don't tread on me".....
Where was that crap when the Patriot act was being passed?
This is pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.
As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.
And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?
My memory and any reference I can find identifies February 2009 as when the tea party people started up. You can't deny the connection that it was a response to Obama being president, and not actually about policy.
Agreed. Many of these tea-party whiners were the same ones mindlessly droning out "you should support your president" or "you should support your troops" in response to anti-war dialogue during bush/Cheney.
When it's a white republican president it's "you're not being a team player" and when its a black democrat it's all the sudden "don't tread on me".....
Where was that crap when the Patriot act was being passed?
This is pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.
As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.
And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?
My memory and any reference I can find identifies February 2009 as when the tea party people started up. You can't deny the connection that it was a response to Obama being president, and not actually about policy.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".
Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.
Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".
Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.
Then specify your version. When one says the "Tea Party started in 2009...:, that is factually incorrect regardless of what version you are referring to. If one says something like "The Tea Party that was hijacked in 2009" that would be more accurate and then we wouldn't have these issues.
Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.
Then specify your version. When one says the "Tea Party started in 2009...:, that is factually incorrect regardless of what version you are referring to. If one says something like "The Tea Party that was hijacked in 2009" that would be more accurate and then we wouldn't have these issues.
Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".
Uh... No. That's not what that post says.
We all know that while there may have been a few wing nuts who called themselves "the tea party" before 2009... It was in 2009 when 99% of the Tea Party lunatics started their silly pep rallies.
Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.
A different version of the TEA Party started after his election, I will give you that.
Then specify your version. When one says the "Tea Party started in 2009...:, that is factually incorrect regardless of what version you are referring to. If one says something like "The Tea Party that was hijacked in 2009" that would be more accurate and then we wouldn't have these issues.
I would agree with this. My wingnut faction started to protest because of out of control spending, wars, corporate bailouts, and the loss of personal liberty through garbage like the PATRIOT Act.
I pretty much have removed myself because the thing went neo-con.
Plus, I saw John McCain as an extension of Bush policies. I wanted nothing to do with that.
I am willing to write the current version of the Tea Party off as not being representative of Libertarian ideals. But there are still questions in my mind about the 2007 version.
The Ron Paul Tea Party begins in 2007 and is often described as being just as angry with the GOP as it was with the Democrats. But why did it start then? Where were they before? Was congress not spending like drunken sailors before 2007?
In November of 2006 control of both houses swung back to the Democrats. They are sworn in at the beginning of January. Within months (weeks?) the Tea Party is born. You can almost draw a straight line from one event to the other, and I say that stinks. The cause wasn't worth taking up until the GOP was no longer in control. Hard to give the original Tea Party much credit given that timeline.
This is an interesting thread and conversation. I for one am more convinced than ever that Libertarians do not have a misconception problem. They have a problem with the way they perceive themselves. Their motivations do not always seem to be as lily white as they would have you believe...which I guess makes them no different than many political parties or groups.
I don't know, I see no reason to try to prove someone wrong. If you are really interested I can answer from my perspective however truth be told I'm probably more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian. I don't agree with a few big Libertarian platform issues.
Honestly I voted straight Democrat until 2007 when I found Ron Paul, and I have been working since then to push for individual rights and a Constitutionally limited government.
As far as why did the Ron Paul TEA Party start in 2007 and not earlier, I'd say its because in 2007 he ran for President and it was the first time many people have seen him on the National stage. Yes, he ran in 88 but I wasn't old enough to vote, plus I was too busy watching the Mets.
I don't know, I see no reason to try to prove someone wrong. If you are really interested I can answer from my perspective however truth be told I'm probably more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian. I don't agree with a few big Libertarian platform issues.
Honestly I voted straight Democrat until 2007 when I found Ron Paul, and I have been working since then to push for individual rights and a Constitutionally limited government.
I think there is a lot to be said for the ideals of both. There are a a lot worse ways to look at the world. I think where our common ground becomes a fork in the road is that I don't think the ideals work as well in practice as they do in theory.
Maybe, maybe not. But at this point in time would it hurt to try?
It's not like this runaway spending and endless occupation of other countries is going to be sustainable forever. The debt will catch us.
Liberals really do have a lot in common with Libertarians.
Oh well that explains it. I am no liberal.
I think the wide variety of problems we face in this country are proof positive that they we have not found the right solution to many of them. We should keep trying new things and debating what works and what doesn't. No disagreement there.
I think the wide variety of problems we face in this country are proof positive that they we have not found the right solution to many of them. We should keep trying new things and debating what works and what doesn't. No disagreement there.
I should clarify that Liberals can find many similarities with Libertarians, and if they were sick of the spending it would be a route to look at.
Liberals really do have a lot in common with Libertarians.
How so?
foreign policy, freedom of the press, freedom of/from religion, our drug laws are ridiculous, ending corporate welfare, lobbyists have/are ruining politics in our country, easier immigration, repeal of the patriot act...
lots of common ground I think
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
what is his speech about? Just speaking to a group of people means you have sold out to the religious right? Seems like kind of a leap, doesn't it? I mean, I watched him speak to "Hispanics in Politics" group in vegas and tell them he doesn't support the DREAM act.
Speaking there isn't wrong, he has never implied he wasn't a christian.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I find it funny that their conference last year touted the imminent apocalypse.
We all sense that world events are building to a climax. The year 2012 is seen by many as a
turning point in human and cosmic history. But we need no Mayan calendars, no astronomical
calculations, no psychic predictions to know that we have reached the end of the line, where
human wisdom has been exhausted.
Our Lady told Sister Lucy of Fatima that the devil is in “the mood for a final battle.” A
FINAL BATTLE!
When asked about the Third Secret of Fatima, whose full contents are still being kept
from us, Sister Lucy said, “IT’S IN THE APOCALYPSE.” The Apocalypse is the last book of
the Bible. It tells what will happen in the End Times.
It is not given to any man to know the day and the hour when this
world will end, but we know that it will end. We are also Our Lord to “read the signs of the times.” Could Our Lady
of Fatima make the signs of the times any plainer?
Only the willfully blind can avoid the conclusion:
WE ARE APPROACHING A FINAL RECKONING!
"Whew, glad we whiffed on that one! So what should we focus on in 2013..."
I find it funny that their conference last year touted the imminent apocalypse.
We all sense that world events are building to a climax. The year 2012 is seen by many as a
turning point in human and cosmic history. But we need no Mayan calendars, no astronomical
calculations, no psychic predictions to know that we have reached the end of the line, where
human wisdom has been exhausted.
Our Lady told Sister Lucy of Fatima that the devil is in “the mood for a final battle.” A
FINAL BATTLE!
When asked about the Third Secret of Fatima, whose full contents are still being kept
from us, Sister Lucy said, “IT’S IN THE APOCALYPSE.” The Apocalypse is the last book of
the Bible. It tells what will happen in the End Times.
It is not given to any man to know the day and the hour when this
world will end, but we know that it will end. We are also Our Lord to “read the signs of the times.” Could Our Lady
of Fatima make the signs of the times any plainer?
Only the willfully blind can avoid the conclusion:
WE ARE APPROACHING A FINAL RECKONING!
"Whew, glad we whiffed on that one! So what should we focus on in 2013..."
I often wondered what it was like to wake up the next morning and have been wrong about predicting the end of the world publicly and loudly
Is it worse than when you didn't do your homework?
If you really want some comedy, check out Jack Van Impe
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
There is plenty of truth in the statement above. The responsibility part does seem to be often forgotten.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This is pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.
As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.
And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?
My memory and any reference I can find identifies February 2009 as when the tea party people started up. You can't deny the connection that it was a response to Obama being president, and not actually about policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNiDx7qTjA
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.
But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).
But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".
Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Then specify your version. When one says the "Tea Party started in 2009...:, that is factually incorrect regardless of what version you are referring to. If one says something like "The Tea Party that was hijacked in 2009" that would be more accurate and then we wouldn't have these issues.
I don't think we really have an issue now.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
then you need to re-read it
Uh... No. That's not what that post says.
We all know that while there may have been a few wing nuts who called themselves "the tea party" before 2009... It was in 2009 when 99% of the Tea Party lunatics started their silly pep rallies.
A different version of the TEA Party started after his election, I will give you that.
I would agree with this. My wingnut faction started to protest because of out of control spending, wars, corporate bailouts, and the loss of personal liberty through garbage like the PATRIOT Act.
I pretty much have removed myself because the thing went neo-con.
Plus, I saw John McCain as an extension of Bush policies. I wanted nothing to do with that.
The Ron Paul Tea Party begins in 2007 and is often described as being just as angry with the GOP as it was with the Democrats. But why did it start then? Where were they before? Was congress not spending like drunken sailors before 2007?
In November of 2006 control of both houses swung back to the Democrats. They are sworn in at the beginning of January. Within months (weeks?) the Tea Party is born. You can almost draw a straight line from one event to the other, and I say that stinks. The cause wasn't worth taking up until the GOP was no longer in control. Hard to give the original Tea Party much credit given that timeline.
This is an interesting thread and conversation. I for one am more convinced than ever that Libertarians do not have a misconception problem. They have a problem with the way they perceive themselves. Their motivations do not always seem to be as lily white as they would have you believe...which I guess makes them no different than many political parties or groups.
I am of course quite willing to be proven wrong.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Honestly I voted straight Democrat until 2007 when I found Ron Paul, and I have been working since then to push for individual rights and a Constitutionally limited government.
I think there is a lot to be said for the ideals of both. There are a a lot worse ways to look at the world. I think where our common ground becomes a fork in the road is that I don't think the ideals work as well in practice as they do in theory.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's not like this runaway spending and endless occupation of other countries is going to be sustainable forever. The debt will catch us.
Liberals really do have a lot in common with Libertarians.
Oh well that explains it. I am no liberal.
I think the wide variety of problems we face in this country are proof positive that they we have not found the right solution to many of them. We should keep trying new things and debating what works and what doesn't. No disagreement there.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I should clarify that Liberals can find many similarities with Libertarians, and if they were sick of the spending it would be a route to look at.
How so?
foreign policy, freedom of the press, freedom of/from religion, our drug laws are ridiculous, ending corporate welfare, lobbyists have/are ruining politics in our country, easier immigration, repeal of the patriot act...
lots of common ground I think
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
https://twitter.com/JoanCollinsTD/statu ... 84/photo/1
hmmmmm
how so?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
he's speaking at a conference run by these nut jobs
http://www.fatimathepathtopeace.org
what is his speech about? Just speaking to a group of people means you have sold out to the religious right? Seems like kind of a leap, doesn't it? I mean, I watched him speak to "Hispanics in Politics" group in vegas and tell them he doesn't support the DREAM act.
Speaking there isn't wrong, he has never implied he wasn't a christian.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Whew, glad we whiffed on that one! So what should we focus on in 2013..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I often wondered what it was like to wake up the next morning and have been wrong about predicting the end of the world publicly and loudly
Is it worse than when you didn't do your homework?
If you really want some comedy, check out Jack Van Impe
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan