Conservative Political Forum

General Category => History => Topic started by: T Hunt on April 16, 2018, 08:27:17 AM

Title: History of the RINO
Post by: T Hunt on April 16, 2018, 08:27:17 AM
This is for all of you who have been around long enough to have lived it. I didnt even know the RINO existed until a couple years ago, but i wonder how long they has been going on for? When and how did the RINO first start infiltrating the gop? When was the last time the gop was mainly conservative like its supposed to be?
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on April 16, 2018, 09:18:53 AM
I've touched on this subject a couple of times here and in articles I've written. (gop'E, little connection to the real GOP and strong on Establishment values, or rather, lack of.)

But it goes way back to before the Nixon era when Ailes Nixon's Nixons personal handler. By this point, the "RINO" had essentially helped kill off Goldwater giving LBJ the election and it's been downhill ever since.

if not for Ailes, Rush would still be in Sacramento on KFBK broadcasting to the central valley.
Ailes is the ultimate RINO, a Karl Rove on super steroids, only a 'behind the scene manipulator' out of the limelight.
It was he that made the deal with Murdoch to make FOX the Establishment Infomercial headquarters, and they could still be pulling the wool over people's eyes to date, had it not been for the likes of Boner and the Con.
Yes, early on, Rush was a spokesman for the Establishment.

Then to add insult to injury, the Establishment made the case for the Omnibus Bill where they gave the Marxists everything they demanded and more, only to turn right around and keep Cruz in the dark by ignoring him on FOX news, then to foolishly back Jeb for the next couple of months, and a succession of Establishment sellouts till finally milking Rubio to death, just long enough to suck delegates off of Cruz in support of Trump.

In the interim of all this going on, the Establishment/RINO/Leftists have stayed in power via Crony corporatism. This was threatened by Clinton during his election when he touted his connection to the corporate world, so it forced the gop'E to move further left in order to retain their money base since the Base had essentially bailed on them by this point.

But I digress. Let me back up, I see I've gotten this way out of context because I used old posts I've made in the past.

Take ethanol in gas, a pure waste of money, but the GOP needed corporate farms and the money they were willing to spend to get Govt subsidies, Congress to pass laws that placed tariffs on cheaper ethanol imports.
Yes, oddly enough, we, TEA forced the gop'E to turn their backs on the base and seek other financial support via corporations. Enter NAFTA, suddenly corporate America had no reason to stay and pay higher taxes when they could bail for greener pastures in China etc.

Reagan despised Bush but the RINO forced him to accept the loser as Veep, then as soon as Reagan was out of office, Bush announced he would not have one of Reagan's holdovers in his Administration, so the unraveling of Regan's accomplishments had already begun, which is why Clinton got elected, that and the party gave us losers like Bob Dole and McStain, later to be exposed for the traitor he is, yet the Establishment circled the wagons to protect him.

Sorry, that was so contextually out of date, but if you have specific questions, I'll be more than happy to address them.
The article I wrote below is one showing what was happening on the left during this same time period to the Dim party.

https://conservativehardliner.com/future-democrat-party-2018-and-beyond
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Sick Of Silence on April 16, 2018, 09:25:37 AM
Also called, "The Republican Wing of the Democrat Party"
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on April 16, 2018, 09:46:55 AM
Also called, "The Republican Wing of the Democrat Party"
Sadly, thanks to Newt destroying the Dim party when he was Speaker, the GOP happily accepted a bunch of Dims to join the party, further growing the Establishments power and leaving behind, what would later become todays Marxist Dim party.
These Dims bailed on the party because they were losing a voice amongst a growing faction of Marxists within the party.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 02:16:28 PM
The term "RINO" came about during the 1990s.  During the 1970s and 1980s we described Republicans who always sided with the Democrats as "Rockefeller Republicans," in reference to the extremely liberal former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was appointed VP by President Ford.

Prior to the 1970s "RINOs" were referenced as "Progressives."  The Progressive Party from 1890 to the 1930s consisted entirely of former Republicans, that included former President Teddy Roosevelt.  Teddy Roosevelt became the Progressive Party presidential candidate in 1912.  Contrary to popular belief, neither President Wilson nor any Democrat had anything to do with the original Progressive Party.  They vehemently opposed these former Republicans.  Which is rather humorous to think that Democrats are trying to pass themselves off as being "progressive" since the 1990s.  Democrats are not really liberal either, at least not in the classical definition of the word.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 03:09:37 PM
The term "RINO" came about during the 1990s.  During the 1970s and 1980s we described Republicans who always sided with the Democrats as "Rockefeller Republicans," in reference to the extremely liberal former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was appointed VP by President Ford.

Prior to the 1970s "RINOs" were referenced as "Progressives."  The Progressive Party from 1890 to the 1930s consisted entirely of former Republicans, that included former President Teddy Roosevelt.  Teddy Roosevelt became the Progressive Party presidential candidate in 1912.  Contrary to popular belief, neither President Wilson nor any Democrat had anything to do with the original Progressive Party.  They vehemently opposed these former Republicans.  Which is rather humorous to think that Democrats are trying to pass themselves off as being "progressive" since the 1990s.  Democrats are not really liberal either, at least not in the classical definition of the word.
Vox has an interesting history on the term, "Repub In Name Only", though the acronym had yet to be spoken until Clinton was elected.

"Teddy Roosevelt was the first true RINO"
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9416259/rino-word-history

Also note, this was during the time Newt essentially gutted the Dim party of it's remaining moderates that jumped ship for the gop'E, leaving behind what turned out to be a bunch of Fabian socialists, or as most know them, as Marxists in the Dim party.
Unfortunately, as I posted earlier, this watered down the GOP with more leftists, as mentioned in the article, in turn pushing out Conservatives and leaving us with what was a complete mess of leftists in the GOP, or rather, gop'E.
Though all of this is changing and has been since 2010. We're nearing the tipping point of taking over the party for the first time as Conservatives in its history arguably.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 04:05:25 PM
Vox has an interesting history on the term, "Repub In Name Only", though the acronym had yet to be spoken until Clinton was elected.

"Teddy Roosevelt was the first true RINO"
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9416259/rino-word-history

Also note, this was during the time Newt essentially gutted the Dim party of it's remaining moderates that jumped ship for the gop'E, leaving behind what turned out to be a bunch of Fabian socialists, or as most know them, as Marxists in the Dim party.
Unfortunately, as I posted earlier, this watered down the GOP with more leftists, as mentioned in the article, in turn pushing out Conservatives and leaving us with what was a complete mess of leftists in the GOP, or rather, gop'E.
Though all of this is changing and has been since 2010. We're nearing the tipping point of taking over the party for the first time as Conservatives in its history arguably.
I disagree with Vox's assessment.  Teddy Roosevelt was no longer a Republican after 1912.  He was so upset with how President Taft was screwing things up, he decided to run for a third term as a member of the Progressive Party.  Teddy was shot in the chest while performing one of his campaign speeches, but he finished his speech walked back into the railroad car and declared that he was "as fit as a bull moose."  Hence forth the Progressive Party became known as the Bull Moose Party.

While the Progressive Party did indeed support the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments, and they all originated with the Republican Party initially, it would be incorrect to describe them as "RINOs" since they were no longer Republican In Name.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 04:13:22 PM
I disagree with Vox's assessment.  Teddy Roosevelt was no longer a Republican after 1912.  He was so upset with how President Taft was screwing things up, he decided to run for a third term as a member of the Progressive Party.  Teddy was shot in the chest while performing one of his campaign speeches, but he finished his speech walked back into the railroad car and declared that he was "as fit as a bull moose."  Hence forth the Progressive Party became known as the Bull Moose Party.

While the Progressive Party did indeed support the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments, and they all originated with the Republican Party initially, it would be incorrect to describe them as "RINOs" since they were no longer Republican In Name.
I didn't read the article perse, I was more, in referring to the links embedded within.
The actual newspaper clippings of the day. Those to me are fascinating.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 04:25:18 PM
I didn't read the article perse, I was more, in referring to the links embedded within.
The actual newspaper clippings of the day. Those to me are fascinating.
I think the term RINO needs to be reserved only to those who continue to call themselves Republican, but do not behave like Republicans.  Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski are just two of many such examples in the current Congress.

If they aren't calling themselves a Republican any longer, then the RINO label doesn't really apply.  I think you are seeing a lot of Democrats registering as Republicans ever since the Republican Party took back the majority in the House in 1995.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 11, 2018, 05:57:51 PM
I think the term RINO needs to be reserved only to those who continue to call themselves Republican, but do not behave like Republicans.  Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski are just two of many such examples in the current Congress.

If they aren't calling themselves a Republican any longer, then the RINO label doesn't really apply.  I think you are seeing a lot of Democrats registering as Republicans ever since the Republican Party took back the majority in the House in 1995.
First one has to define what being a Republican really means. The party hasn't been even remotely Conservative since Goldwater and somewhat before, even going back another century.
The party's were split along ideological lines which intersected where the nations constituency and Constitution were concerned, but both needed money to stay in power and Conservatism has never been a money maker.
For me, more than half the party cares nothing about the people, only the monied interests that keep them in power, which in truth, has always been at the core of party politics, particularly the Pubs and their Cronyism, something the Dims usurped under Clinton and instead of doing what the people elected them to do, they chose to move left in hopes of capturing more of the money the Dims seized.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 13, 2018, 12:44:48 PM
First one has to define what being a Republican really means. The party hasn't been even remotely Conservative since Goldwater and somewhat before, even going back another century.
The party's were split along ideological lines which intersected where the nations constituency and Constitution were concerned, but both needed money to stay in power and Conservatism has never been a money maker.
For me, more than half the party cares nothing about the people, only the monied interests that keep them in power, which in truth, has always been at the core of party politics, particularly the Pubs and their Cronyism, something the Dims usurped under Clinton and instead of doing what the people elected them to do, they chose to move left in hopes of capturing more of the money the Dims seized.
The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were split along ideological lines, but the Democratic Party was created out of sheer spite.  It was because Andrew Jackson lost the 1824 presidential election, even though he had the most popular and Electoral votes, that he created the Democratic Party in 1828.  It was hatred, not ideology that spawned the Democratic Party and it remains the "Party of Hate" to this day.

What remained of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties after 1828 became the Whig Party, in mockery of Andrew Jackson tendency to govern as if he were a King.  A quarter century later the Whigs became the Republican Party.  Right about the same time the "Party of Hate," a.k.a. the Democratic Party, started the Civil War.  Every slave owner in the US in 1861 was a Democrat, without exception.

The Republican Party has always been a champion for individual civil liberties.  It has only been the Republican Party that has ever sponsored any laws pertaining to civil rights, and always opposed by the Democratic Party.  The "fiscal conservative" aspect of the Republican Party only started to become a factor after WW II, when the GOP finally regained control of the House.  During that time they not only stopped the federal hemorrhaging by the Democrats, they managed to get a surplus and reduce the National Debt.  However, it did not last long.  By 1956 the Democrats had retaken the House and the GOP would not regain the majority again until 1994.

From 1995 to 1998, under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich, the GOP controlled House did indeed demonstrate fiscal restraint.  Unfortunately, I cannot say that about the GOP since 1998.  Speakers Frist, Hastert, Boehner, and Ryan have been serious disappointments.

The underlying philosophy of the Democratic-Republican / Whig / Republican Party, and what clearly separates them from the Democratic Party, has always been to champion the civil liberties of every one.  In general they support the founding principles of the US - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Whereas the Democratic Party is anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness.  In other words, the Democratic Party is the anti-American party, and the greatest threat the nation has ever faced.





Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 13, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were split along ideological lines, but the Democratic Party was created out of sheer spite.  It was because Andrew Jackson lost the 1824 presidential election, even though he had the most popular and Electoral votes, that he created the Democratic Party in 1828.  It was hatred, not ideology that spawned the Democratic Party and it remains the "Party of Hate" to this day.

What remained of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties after 1828 became the Whig Party, in mockery of Andrew Jackson tendency to govern as if he were a King.  A quarter century later the Whigs became the Republican Party.  Right about the same time the "Party of Hate," a.k.a. the Democratic Party, started the Civil War.  Every slave owner in the US in 1861 was a Democrat, without exception.

The Republican Party has always been a champion for individual civil liberties.  It has only been the Republican Party that has ever sponsored any laws pertaining to civil rights, and always opposed by the Democratic Party.  The "fiscal conservative" aspect of the Republican Party only started to become a factor after WW II, when the GOP finally regained control of the House.  During that time they not only stopped the federal hemorrhaging by the Democrats, they managed to get a surplus and reduce the National Debt.  However, it did not last long.  By 1956 the Democrats had retaken the House and the GOP would not regain the majority again until 1994.

From 1995 to 1998, under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich, the GOP controlled House did indeed demonstrate fiscal restraint.  Unfortunately, I cannot say that about the GOP since 1998.  Speakers Frist, Hastert, Boehner, and Ryan have been serious disappointments.

The underlying philosophy of the Democratic-Republican / Whig / Republican Party, and what clearly separates them from the Democratic Party, has always been to champion the civil liberties of every one.  In general they support the founding principles of the US - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Whereas the Democratic Party is anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness.  In other words, the Democratic Party is the anti-American party, and the greatest threat the nation has ever faced.
Yeah, we all know the history, but we also know the rest that you conveniently skipped over.
Like Teddy Rosevelt's Progressive Bull Moose party or Lincolns creation of the IRS, Nixon killed the gold based dollar.
These were all progressive moves to grow govt and quash individual Liberty.

Truth is, The GOP has never truly been a defender of the Constitution, they merely capitulated to the left for personal gain and claimed there was nothing they could do about it. (latest evidence, the OMNIBUS Bill, or Ethanol/farm subsidies)
Instead of the party actually standing their ground, they have historically ceded to the left, and yes, I can list tens of thousands of pieces of Legislation where they gave in, only to gain for those that put them in office.

Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 13, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Yeah, we all know the history, but we also know the rest that you conveniently skipped over.
Like Teddy Rosevelt's Progressive Bull Moose party or Lincolns creation of the IRS, Nixon killed the gold based dollar.
These were all progressive moves to grow govt and quash individual Liberty.

Truth is, The GOP has never truly been a defender of the Constitution, they merely capitulated to the left for personal gain and claimed there was nothing they could do about it. (latest evidence, the OMNIBUS Bill, or Ethanol/farm subsidies)
Instead of the party actually standing their ground, they have historically ceded to the left, and yes, I can list tens of thousands of pieces of Legislation where they gave in, only to gain for those that put them in office.
Actually, Nixon took us off the Silver Standard in 1971.  FDR took the US off the Gold Standard in 1933.

Also the Progressive Party began in the 1890s, long before Teddy Roosevelt decided to run as their candidate in 1912.  The Progressive Party extended into the 1930s.  It was not Teddy's party.

You have it completely backwards.  As I mentioned, the Progressive Party supported the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments.  The 15th and 19th Amendments were certainly progressive in nature.  Without the support of the Progressive Party neither blacks nor women would have been able to vote.  The 16th and 17th had no effect on the size of government or individual liberties.

The 18th Amendment was, without a doubt, a restriction on individual liberties by the Progressive Party, and not progressive at all.  Thankfully that mistake did not last long and was repealed.  The majority of the Republican Party also voted for the 18th Amendment, which was not very characteristic of them either.

The Republican Party has been the ONLY defender of the US Constitution since its inception.  What do you think the Civil War was about?  You need to learn more about US political history.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 13, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Actually, Nixon took us off the Silver Standard in 1971.  FDR took the US off the Gold Standard in 1933.

True, and he did it under an EO, of course Congress followed up to make the scam a law, where he stole gold from the American people and increased the value from ($20.00?) But gold was still locked to the dollar under gold bonds, when he raised the price that held at $35 per ounce until Nixon finally broke the bond of gold to dollar permanently.

Quote
Also the Progressive Party began in the 1890s, long before Teddy Roosevelt decided to run as their candidate in 1912.  The Progressive Party extended into the 1930s.  It was not Teddy's party.

Arguably, this is a good point, in that Teddy exposed the split in the party and progressives made serious inroads in the GOP, from which we never recovered.

Quote
You have it completely backwards.  As I mentioned, the Progressive Party supported the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments.  The 15th and 19th Amendments were certainly progressive in nature.  Without the support of the Progressive Party neither blacks nor women would have been able to vote.  The 16th and 17th had no effect on the size of government or individual liberties.

No, you're comparing two essentially two leftist party's. There was no real need for any of these Amendments, had the Constitution actually been followed, but this is opinion based and I see no reason to expand this discussion on the point further, for I base it on the mess we're in today.

Quote
The 18th Amendment was, without a doubt, a restriction on individual liberties by the Progressive Party, and not progressive at all.  Thankfully that mistake did not last long and was repealed.  The majority of the Republican Party also voted for the 18th Amendment, which was not very characteristic of them either.

The Republican Party has been the ONLY defender of the US Constitution since its inception.  What do you think the Civil War was about?  You need to learn more about US political history.

This is where we split. I see both party's stealing from Peter to pay Paul, with the exception, The pubs steal less, but they still steal.
The real problem is neither party protects the Constitution or the B of R, one constantly attacks, while the other gives ground on a regular basis.
If the GOP were truly a Conservative leaning party, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 14, 2018, 12:09:58 PM
True, and he did it under an EO, of course Congress followed up to make the scam a law, where he stole gold from the American people and increased the value from ($20.00?) But gold was still locked to the dollar under gold bonds, when he raised the price that held at $35 per ounce until Nixon finally broke the bond of gold to dollar permanently.
Incorrect.  The US had been off the Gold Standard for 38 years before Nixon took the US off the Silver Standard.  You are confusing Nixon with FDR.  Nixon had no choice but to take the US off the Silver Standard because of the Marshall Plan.  We flooded Europe with US dollars rebuilding it after WW II, and if Nixon had not taken the dollar off of all precious metal standards in 1971 it would have bankrupted the nation.

Arguably, this is a good point, in that Teddy exposed the split in the party and progressives made serious inroads in the GOP, from which we never recovered.
Also incorrect.  There has always been third parties in the US, and the Progressive Party was one of them.  You wouldn't call the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party a split from the Republican Party would you?  Then you can't call the Progressive Party a split from the Republican Party either.

No, you're comparing two essentially two leftist party's. There was no real need for any of these Amendments, had the Constitution actually been followed, but this is opinion based and I see no reason to expand this discussion on the point further, for I base it on the mess we're in today.
Incorrect yet again.  The Progressive Party were not leftists.  You are allowing Democrats today define what it means to be progressive, and that is a serious mistake.  Progressives are NOT leftists, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Leftists hated the Progressive Party.  President Wilson opposed everything the Progressive Party supported, including women's right to vote.  Leftists are anti-liberty, progressives are pro-liberty - which is why they were all former Republicans and no Democrats.  The Progressive Party also supported a federal anti-lynching law, which every Democrat in Congress opposed.  Just because Democrats claim to be "progressive" or "liberal" does not mean that they are.  Democrats are always claiming to be something they clearly are not.

You need to read "Age of Reform" by Richard Hofstadter.  It covers US political history from 1890 to 1940.    Written in 1960, he won a Pulitzer Prize for History with this book.

This is where we split. I see both party's stealing from Peter to pay Paul, with the exception, The pubs steal less, but they still steal.
The real problem is neither party protects the Constitution or the B of R, one constantly attacks, while the other gives ground on a regular basis.
If the GOP were truly a Conservative leaning party, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If by "steal" you mean implement a constitutionally authorized tax, how do you think government is funded?  Taxation is not theft.

I already explained how the Republican Party became associated with being "fiscally conservative."  That was a relatively new phenomena started in the 1950s and did not last very long.  The Republican Party today has been infiltrated by so many Democrats that it is nothing like it was just 20 years ago.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 14, 2018, 03:25:14 PM
Incorrect.  The US had been off the Gold Standard for 38 years before Nixon took the US off the Silver Standard.  You are confusing Nixon with FDR.  Nixon had no choice but to take the US off the Silver Standard because of the Marshall Plan.  We flooded Europe with US dollars rebuilding it after WW II, and if Nixon had not taken the dollar off of all precious metal standards in 1971 it would have bankrupted the nation.
That's what I said, so how is it incorrect?

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold_convertibility_ends

Quote
Also incorrect.  There has always been third parties in the US, and the Progressive Party was one of them.
Actually, there are 23 3rd party choices at the moment.

Quote
You wouldn't call the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party a split from the Republican Party would you?
Yes, I would, as evidenced by many leaving the Dim party in the last decade in search of a new party.

Quote
Then you can't call the Progressive Party a split from the Republican Party either.
The party is packed full of progressives, which is what brought about the TEA rebellion in 2010.

Quote
Incorrect yet again.  The Progressive Party were not leftists.  You are allowing Democrats today define what it means to be progressive, and that is a serious mistake.  Progressives are NOT leftists, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Agree, it's what Marxist do, they usurp terms from the right and wrap themselves in Patriotism, a definite misnomer.
But since they've destroyed the true meaning, let them have it, we will always be Classic Liberals.


Leftists hated the Progressive Party.  President Wilson opposed everything the Progressive Party supported, including women's right to vote.  Leftists are anti-liberty, progressives are pro-liberty - which is why they were all former Republicans and no Democrats.  The Progressive Party also supported a federal anti-lynching law, which every Democrat in Congress opposed.  Just because Democrats claim to be "progressive" or "liberal" does not mean that they are.  Democrats are always claiming to be something they clearly are not.
Again, we agree, but leftists know it only takes one generation to forget the past.

Quote
You need to read "Age of Reform" by Richard Hofstadter.  It covers US political history from 1890 to 1940.    Written in 1960, he won a Pulitzer Prize for History with this book.
If by "steal" you mean implement a constitutionally authorized tax, how do you think government is funded?  Taxation is not theft.

Another point of contention. At what point in taxation is ever enough?


Quote
I already explained how the Republican Party became associated with being "fiscally conservative."  That was a relatively new phenomena started in the 1950s and did not last very long.  The Republican Party today has been infiltrated by so many Democrats that it is nothing like it was just 20 years ago.
Try 40 years.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 14, 2018, 07:03:57 PM
That's what I said, so how is it incorrect?
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold_convertibility_ends
You said Nixon took the US off the Gold Standard.  He did not.  FDR did.

Actually, there are 23 3rd party choices at the moment.
Yes, I would, as evidenced by many leaving the Dim party in the last decade in search of a new party.
The party is packed full of progressives, which is what brought about the TEA rebellion in 2010.
By your definition everyone is either a Republican or a Democrat.  Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

The original TEA Party was created in 1972 by Libertarians (which also formed their party in 1972) in Minnesota.  It held its first national protest in DC on April 15, 1977.  As their acronym suggests, they only had one issue - taxation.  They continued to hold national protests on April 15th every year following a massive tax increase.  The last was held on April 15, 1994 after Congress enacted a massive retroactive tax increase in 1993.

Then in 2008 the Ron Paul fanatics high-jacked the TEA Party and started using it for a wide variety of issues that it never espoused before.  The original TEA Party ceased to exist after 2008.  It has become a bastardization.

Agree, it's what Marxist do, they usurp terms from the right and wrap themselves in Patriotism, a definite misnomer.
But since they've destroyed the true meaning, let them have it, we will always be Classic Liberals.
It is how leftists have managed to convince millions that Adolf Hitler, the NAZI Party, and the founder of fascism (Benito Mussolini) were somehow right-wing.  Because we "let them have it" and change definitions to suit their political agenda, thus creating what has become "The Great Lie."

The last thing the Democratic Party wants the public to know is how closely they were aligned with the German NAZI Party throughout the 1920s and 1930s.  Democrats not only supported the concentration camps in NAZI Germany, they created those very same camps in the US.

Another point of contention. At what point in taxation is ever enough?
Under our form of government, whenever the voter decides to elect a politician who isn't interested in raising taxes.  As the adage goes, "you get the government you deserve."  As long as the civically illiterate voters continue to blame the wrong people we can expect the status quo to continue, and eventually get even worse.

The real question is how much government can we afford?  As a constitutional conservative I want to see the federal government held to only those powers granted them by the US Constitution.  Which means that Social Security, MediCare/MedicAid, and all federal social spending would be abolished.  That would cut the federal budget by more than 67%.

Try 40 years.
The Republian Party was still fiscally conservative until 1998.  After Speaker Gingrich resigned, however, that began to change.  They still passed appropriation bills prior to 1999.  That hasn't happened since.  Every budget has been passed using Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus bills, and/or Supplimental Spending bills.  It has been exactly 20 years since the House passed all twelve (13 if you count DC) appropriation bills.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 14, 2018, 07:27:20 PM
You said Nixon took the US off the Gold Standard.  He did not.  FDR did.
And nothing happened as far as the price of gold since they kept it locked at $32,0 an ounce, Nixon was the one that literally drew the death blow and opened up the country to the Fiat dollar.
I was in Korea at the time and everyone was buying gold, knowing what was about to happen, I was one of them.

Quote
By your definition everyone is either a Republican or a Democrat.  Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

Wrong! There are so many leftists in the gop'E that happily align with the Dim party, essentially making the party Dim lite.
How is it you can't see how far left the GOP has moved, so much so, they're further left than the Dims of the 60s?


Quote
The original TEA Party was created in 1972 by Libtertarians (which also formed their party in 1972) in Minnesota.  It held its first national protest in DC on April 15, 1977.  As their acronym suggests, they only had one issue - taxation.  They continued to hold national protests on April 15th every year following a massive tax increase.  The last was held on April 15, 1994 after Congress enacted a massive retroactive tax increase.

I suggest you read a bit more before you start proclaiming the Libertarian movement a TEA movement, that is a complete fallacy, and believe me, you'll get plenty of arguments from other TEA members as well, not just me.
The early Libertarian movement had some great points but was quickly flooded with libs who destroyed the movement.
It wasn't until the gop'E installed Gary Johnson as the head for fear Conservatives might dump the GOP.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/here's-the-original-libertarian-platform-from-1972/msg309776/#msg309776

Quote
Then in 2008 the Ron Paul fanatics high-jacked the TEA Party and started using it for a wide variety of issues that it never espoused before.  The original TEA Party ceased to exist after 2008.  It has become a bastardization.
OK, cut the Bullshit!
TEA is alive and well and was formed in 2010. This forum is packed full of TEA so called members, since there really isn't an actual party.

Quote
It is how leftists have managed to convince millions that Adolf Hitler, the NAZI Party, and the founder of fascism (Benito Mussolini) were somehow right-wing.  Because we "let them have it" and change definitions to suit their political agenda, thus creating what has become "The Great Lie."
Correct.

Quote
The last thing the Democratic Party wants the public to know is how closely they were aligned with the German NAZI Party throughout the 1920s and 1930s.  Democrats not only supported the concentration camps in NAZI Germany, they created those very same camps in the US.
Yes, we've discussed it in great detail over the years.

Quote
Under our form of government, whenever the voter decides to elect a politician who isn't interested in raising taxes.  As the adage goes, "you get the government you deserve."  As long as the civically illiterate voters continue to blame the wrong people we can expect the status quo to continue, and eventually get even worse.
The Republian Party was still fiscally conservative until 1998.  After Speaker Gingrich resigned, however, that began to change.  They still passed appropriation bills prior to 1999.  That hasn't happened since.  Every budget has been passed using Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus bills, and/or Supplimental Spending bills.  It has been exactly 20 years since the House passed all twelve (13 if you count DC) appropriation bills.

Aw Jeez, have you even looked at our unfunded debt? It happended long before Bush, though he was the first to break with the tradition of feigning a balanced budget.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 14, 2018, 07:55:33 PM
And nothing happened as far as the price of gold since they kept it locked at $32,0 an ounce, Nixon was the one that literally drew the death blow and opened up the country to the Fiat dollar.
I was in Korea at the time and everyone was buying gold, knowing what was about to happen, I was one of them.
Nixon had no choice in the matter.  The money we flooded Europe with after WW II was coming back to bite us.  Even with those frozen precious metal prices inflation still skyrocketed.  Since you were in Korea at the time you may not recall the 12% inflation during the mid- and late-70s.  The interest rates on 30-year mortgages reached 18% by 1980.

The recession of 1974 to 1984 makes this last recession from 2008 to 2016 seem rather pathetic by comparison.

Wrong! There are so many leftists in the gop'E that happily align with the Dim party, essentially making the party Dim lite.
How is it you can't see how far left the GOP has moved, so much so, they're further left than the Dims of the 60s?
I ceased being a Republican after the 1992 election, and I certainly am not a Democrat.  Despite your delusions to the contrary, there are more than just Republicans and Democrats.  The universe does not revolve around those two politicial parties no matter how much you may desire it.

I suggest you read a bit more before you start proclaiming the Libertarian movement a TEA movement, that is a complete fallacy, and believe me, you'll get plenty of arguments from other TEA members as well, not just me.
The early Libertarian movement had some great points but was quickly flooded with libs who destroyed the movement.
It wasn't until the gop'E installed Gary Johnson as the head for fear Conservatives might dump the GOP.
I lived it, I don't need to read about it.  John Hospers was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1972.  The Libertarian Party formed in Colorado in December 1971.  In Minnesota in 1972 the TEA Party was created by members of the Libertarian Party.  This is a matter of indisputable fact.  The TEA Party did not begin in 2010, nor did it have anything to do with Gary Johnson.

What part of "TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY" are you not able to grasp?  That was the sole issue of the original TEA Party.  In 2008 Ron Paul fanatics high-jacked the TEA Party and began using it for every possible issue under the sun.  By 2010 every State had two or three different TEA Party organizations, each working on different agendas.

The current TEA Party is nothing like the original.

Aw Jeez, have you even looked at our unfunded debt? It happended long before Bush, though he was the first to break with the tradition of feigning a balanced budget.
It took us 191 years to accumulate a National Debt of one trillion dollars.  It has only taken us another 38 years to increase the National Debt to just over $21 trillion.  It also just so happens that during that very same 38 year period civics went conspicuously missing from public schools.  Coincidence?  I think not.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 14, 2018, 09:06:40 PM
Nixon had no choice in the matter.  The money we flooded Europe with after WW II was coming back to bite us.  Even with those frozen precious metal prices inflation still skyrocketed.  Since you were in Korea at the time you may not recall the 12% inflation during the mid- and late-70s.  The interest rates on 30-year mortgages reached 18% by 1980.
The recession of 1974 to 1984 makes this last recession from 2008 to 2016 seem rather pathetic by comparison.
Nixon had a choice, he was a coward and took the easy way out.

Quote
I ceased being a Republican after the 1992 election, and I certainly am not a Democrat.  Despite your delusions to the contrary, there are more than just Republicans and Democrats.  The universe does not revolve around those two politicial parties no matter how much you may desire it.

At the moment, the Establishment owns both party's, so in essence, there is but one party, so get that nonsense out of your head.
In spite of what the gop'E says, the Dim party is all but dead, the GOP needs a boogyman so as to keep people voting in more RINO, that's the way they've been playing it for decades, and it's finally coming to an end.

Quote
I lived it, I don't need to read about it.  John Hospers was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1972.  The Libertarian Party formed in Colorado in December 1971.  In Minnesota in 1972 the TEA Party was created by members of the Libertarian Party.  This is a matter of indisputable fact.  The TEA Party did not begin in 2010, nor did it have anything to do with Gary Johnson.

I never said Johnso had anything to do with TEA, I stated he was a RINO the GOP planted to keep Conservatives from joining the movement.

Quote
What part of "TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY" are you not able to grasp?  That was the sole issue of the original TEA Party.  In 2008 Ron Paul fanatics high-jacked the TEA Party and began using it for every possible issue under the sun.  By 2010 every State had two or three different TEA Party organizations, each working on different agendas.

Wrong on so many levels! You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own so-called facts.
Paulbots were small in number, there was no way a handful of people had any influence over the TEA movement, so I don't care what you read or where you heard it, it's just a flat out lie that Paulbots had any influence in TEA. TEA didn't come along until 2009, so that blows that crap out of the water.

Quote
The current TEA Party is nothing like the original.
It took us 191 years to accumulate a National Debt of one trillion dollars.  It has only taken us another 38 years to increase the National Debt to just over $21 trillion.  It also just so happens that during that very same 38 year period civics went conspicuously missing from public schools.  Coincidence?  I think not.
It is in many ways, Patriots finally found a voice in the new TEA movement, not unlike the Tea rebellion of yesteryear.
Here is the history of the current TEA movement, and I should know, I started this forum shortly after.
That's why it's called a TEA forum.

Remember this day? The inception of TEA, the rest is history in the making, and we are still a part of it.
Dead my Ass! :thumbsup:
Six years ago, CNBC started the Tea Party movement.

On February 24, 2009, while reporting for Squawk Box from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Rick Santelli (who was briefly featured during Wednesday’s debate) went on a dramatic rant against President Obama’s Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, a stimulus package aimed at helping homeowners in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure.
A true showman in his element, Santelli then turned around to face his audience. “This is America!” he shouted. “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” The traders erupted in boos.
The moment read like something straight out of the many Tea Party rallies seen during the 2010 election season.

“President Obama, are you listening?” Santelli boomed. “We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July,” he continued. “All you capitalists show up to Lake Michigan, I’m going to start organizing.”
“The government is promoting bad behavior,” he said. “How about this, president and new administration, why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/30/when-cnbc-created-the-tea-party.html
Santelli drew rapturous applause from the floor traders—the “silent majority,” as he described them—when he added that the government should “reward people that can carry the water instead of drink the water.”
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 14, 2018, 11:58:08 PM
Nixon had a choice, he was a coward and took the easy way out.
The only choice Nixon had was to freeze prices or bankrupt the country.  He chose the former.  I suppose you would have chosen the latter.

Wrong on so many levels! You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own so-called facts.
Paulbots were small in number, there was no way a handful of people had any influence over the TEA movement, so I don't care what you read or where you heard it, it's just a flat out lie that Paulbots had any influence in TEA. TEA didn't come along until 2009, so that blows that crap out of the water.
It is in many ways, Patriots finally found a voice in the new TEA movement, not unlike the Tea rebellion of yesteryear.
Here is the history of the current TEA movement, and I should know, I started this forum shortly after.
That's why it's called a TEA forum.
You might want to actually look it up and get a clue before you embarrass yourself further.  The very first high-jacking of the TEA Party by Ron Paul fanatics was on December 16, 2007 to raise money for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.  Which obviously had absolutely nothing to do with taxes.  These fanatics continued throughout 2008 and into 2009.  By 2009 the TEA Party was completely consumed by these fanatics.  Not content with the single issue of taxation, the TEA Party now protested on July 4, 2009, September 12, 2009, and November 5, 2009 and it had absolutely nothing to do with taxes on any of those occasions.

These are irrefutable and documented facts.  The only one who is wrong here is you.

Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 15, 2018, 06:20:57 AM
The only choice Nixon had was to freeze prices or bankrupt the country.  He chose the former.  I suppose you would have chosen the latter.
Damn Right! I'd have taken a Capitalists approach and bit the bullet and let the market self correct, the way it is designed.

Quote
You might want to actually look it up and get a clue before you embarrass yourself further.  The very first high-jacking of the TEA Party by Ron Paul fanatics was on December 16, 2007 to raise money for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.  Which obviously had absolutely nothing to do with taxes.  These fanatics continued throughout 2008 and into 2009.  By 2009 the TEA Party was completely consumed by these fanatics.  Not content with the single issue of taxation, the TEA Party now protested on July 4, 2009, September 12, 2009, and November 5, 2009 and it had absolutely nothing to do with taxes on any of those occasions.

These are irrefutable and documented facts.  The only one who is wrong here is you.

I see, so, just because you believe this, it must be so, is that how you debate?
You see, at this forum, when you post bullshit and someone calls you on it, it's incumbent upon that individual to then, back up their crap with supporting documentation.
I think what you fail to realize is, this forum was at the forefront of the TEA movement, one of the reasons for starting this forum was the TEA movement.
We are a historical timeline of events since its inception.
I gave you solid evidence of TEA's birth, either prove it wrong or concede and drop this silly nonsense.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-cnbc-created-the-tea-party
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 15, 2018, 11:21:04 AM
Damn Right! I'd have taken a Capitalists approach and bit the bullet and let the market self correct, the way it is designed.
Why am I not surprised that you would prefer to destroy the nation.   :rolleyes:

I see, so, just because you believe this, it must be so, is that how you debate?
You see, at this forum, when you post bullshit and someone calls you on it, it's incumbent upon that individual to then, back up their crap with supporting documentation.
I think what you fail to realize is, this forum was at the forefront of the TEA movement, one of the reasons for starting this forum was the TEA movement.
We are a historical timeline of events since its inception.
I gave you solid evidence of TEA's birth, either prove it wrong or concede and drop this silly nonsense.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-cnbc-created-the-tea-party
It isn't about belief, it is about fact.  I posted the dates of the TEA Party protests going back to their inception in 1972.  You chose to ignore those facts.  All you have is completely made-up bullshit from some hack who knows even less about US politics than you.  Since you prefer to remain deluded and can't accept any documented fact, I consider this thread to be over.  I already spent too much time trying to educate you about US politics since you clearly needed it.  I don't waste my time with those who refuse to learn and deliberately choose to delude themselves.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: walkstall on May 15, 2018, 11:55:56 AM
Why am I not surprised that you would prefer to destroy the nation.   :rolleyes:
It isn't about belief, it is about fact.  I posted the dates of the TEA Party protests going back to their inception in 1972.  You chose to ignore those facts.  All you have is completely made-up bullshit from some hack who knows even less about US politics than you.  Since you prefer to remain deluded and can't accept any documented fact, I consider this thread to be over.  I already spent too much time trying to educate you about US politics since you clearly needed it.  I don't waste my time with those who refuse to learn and deliberately choose to delude themselves.


Sorry but from what I see is you post dates and post what you like around them.  I don't see your dates as facts only what you say.  If you think people will blindly follow you on this board your wrong.

But that's just my way of thinking. 
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 15, 2018, 12:15:07 PM
Why am I not surprised that you would prefer to destroy the nation.   :rolleyes:
Allowing unimpeded free market capitalism is your idea of destroying the nation? Your RINO is showing.

Quote
It isn't about belief, it is about fact.  I posted the dates of the TEA Party protests going back to their inception in 1972.  You chose to ignore those facts.
I'm ignoring the facts? I posted the actual party platform and history, you chose to completely ignore the facts, get your shit right.

Quote
All you have is completely made-up bullshit from some hack who knows even less about US politics than you.  Since you prefer to remain deluded and can't accept any documented fact, I consider this thread to be over.  I already spent too much time trying to educate you about US politics since you clearly needed it.  I don't waste my time with those who refuse to learn and deliberately choose to delude themselves.

Is that how the Neocon works? You claim to post facts but refuse to back them up, I give you an actual documented accounting of events and I'm the one posting bullshit?
Listen, I know more about political events regarding the GOP and its Establishment than you could ever hope to understand, it is you who were schooled on the subject but chose to bury your head in leftist talking points.

Come on, you've been challenged to back up your so called facts, so get your shit together or the entire forum will see you as I do, a RINO with a mission.
Don't waste my time until you can produce evidence of your lies.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 15, 2018, 12:26:54 PM

Sorry but from what I see is you post dates and post what you like around them.  I don't see your dates as facts only what you say.  If you think people will blindly follow you on this board your wrong.

But that's just my way of thinking.
Yep, theory and presumptive opinions hold no place in a real debate.
Had he bothered to understand the basics of real debate (accredited accounts, an anchor of this forum) he'd know that fact checking is first and foremost in backing one's claims, though, had he known this, he wouldn't have come off looking like such a fool.

Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 16, 2018, 04:15:59 PM

Sorry but from what I see is you post dates and post what you like around them.  I don't see your dates as facts only what you say.  If you think people will blindly follow you on this board your wrong.

But that's just my way of thinking.
How about the CATO Institute saying the exact same thing that I have been posting?  They even mention December 16, 2007 as the date the TEA Party (which was started by Libertarians in 1972) began their fund raiser for Ron Paul.  I mean how difficult is it to Google "December 16, 2007 Ron Paul?"

Libertarian Roots of the Tea Party (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/libertarian-roots-tea-party)

I can't believe nobody on this forum remembers the Libertarian TEA Party from the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.  Is everyone under the age of 30, or is there selective amnesia taking place?
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: walkstall on May 16, 2018, 05:22:34 PM
How about the CATO Institute saying the exact same thing that I have been posting?  They even mention December 16, 2007 as the date the TEA Party (which was started by Libertarians in 1972) began their fund raiser for Ron Paul.  I mean how difficult is it to Google "December 16, 2007 Ron Paul?"

Libertarian Roots of the Tea Party (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/libertarian-roots-tea-party)

I can't believe nobody on this forum remembers the Libertarian TEA Party from the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.  Is everyone under the age of 30, or is there selective amnesia taking place?


It's not my place to look up your posting.  You make the statement it's your place to back it up on this board.  Also on most other boards I have been on for the last 25+ years.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 16, 2018, 05:44:52 PM
How about the CATO Institute saying the exact same thing that I have been posting?  They even mention December 16, 2007 as the date the TEA Party (which was started by Libertarians in 1972) began their fund raiser for Ron Paul.  I mean how difficult is it to Google "December 16, 2007 Ron Paul?"

Libertarian Roots of the Tea Party (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/libertarian-roots-tea-party)

I can't believe nobody on this forum remembers the Libertarian TEA Party from the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.  Is everyone under the age of 30, or is there selective amnesia taking place?
Still waiting for proof. And no, an opinion piece from two years after the inception of TEA is not proof.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: |Glitch| on May 17, 2018, 12:49:31 AM

It's not my place to look up your posting.  You make the statement it's your place to back it up on this board.  Also on most other boards I have been on for the last 25+ years.
I just did precisely that.  I can only point you to the facts, I can't force you to read them or accept them.  There are those, like Solar, who prefer to remain ignorant because it spoils their preconceived and utterly ignorant delusions.  If you can't be bothered to click on a link to verify what I said was true or not, then you are a waste of time and just as delusional as Solar.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: walkstall on May 17, 2018, 03:47:06 AM
I just did precisely that.  I can only point you to the facts, I can't force you to read them or accept them.  There are those, like Solar, who prefer to remain ignorant because it spoils their preconceived and utterly ignorant delusions.  If you can't be bothered to click on a link to verify what I said was true or not, then you are a waste of time and just as delusional as Solar.

What you don't understand is that you ARE a WASTE of my Time.  As I see NO hard facts.   What I do see is an opinion piece by and for Libertarian.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Solar on May 17, 2018, 05:28:57 AM
I just did precisely that.  I can only point you to the facts, I can't force you to read them or accept them.  There are those, like Solar, who prefer to remain ignorant because it spoils their preconceived and utterly ignorant delusions.  If you can't be bothered to click on a link to verify what I said was true or not, then you are a waste of time and just as delusional as Solar.
Did you even note the date on that POS opinion piece you posted? That's right, two whole years after TEA had been formed.
You see, had this been dated before 2010, you would have something significant, but that's the problem with emotional hacks, they can only post what they "FEEL", not what actually took place.
Damn those facts, always getting in the way of a good old fashioned rant.

Like I said, this is a fact based forum, and unless you  can back up your bullshit, the members will never take a single thing you say at face value, never!
Oh, one other point, opinion pieces are not acceptable as source material. This isn't Wiki or the LSM.
Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Walter Josh on May 19, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
A reflection on this er................discussion; hopefully brief.
The Ancient Greeks understood that  the essence of politics involved
the control of power in their City/States.
Then around 400 BC, Plato, in his Republic, defined the Soul
as the differentiating attribute/impulse of Mankind, for all eternity.
Since Men are not and never would be equal; rule by those radiating
wisdom, were his preference for governing; in the form of oligarchy.
As Greece, along w/Rome, created Western Civilization they likely
knew a thing or two about human nature and the natural law.
Two thousand years later we began blessed w/the likes of Washington,
Jefferson, Madison; among the wise, but history has been unkind to us lately.
Our only principled conservative party was the Southern Agrarian & Rural
Democrats, unfortunately fatally tarred by slavery. Since then we have had
a succession of frauds and hustlers exercising the controls of power while
the vast majority of plain people remain cantankerous yet oblivious.
For all time, we get the governance we deserve and tolerate.
While the Tea Party flicker remains distant and dim; it radiates hope.
Suggesr we banish the "We are the greatest" horse manure and internalize
the reality that Greece and Rome endured and prospered for some thirteen
centuries leaving a legacy beyond breathtaking, while we are a tad past two!!!
 



Title: Re: History of the RINO
Post by: Natalen on August 25, 2018, 05:02:41 AM
Guys, I'm studying at the Faculty of History and I have accumulated a lot of academic tasks. My teacher is very much concerned with writing essays and historical facts. I need help. Advise high-quality so that I can close my debts for study.