Matthews can't even predict when his lip drivel will fall on his lapel much less what will happen in 2016. 

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 12:05:52 AM
Are we really all that certain of those 'internals', and can we even allow ourselves to be at this point?

We allowed ourselves to believe that McCain actually had a shot in 2008, when the guy didn't even challenge Obama's claim in the 2nd Presidential debate that the Repubicans were responsible for the economic collapse.

We then had numerous Right Wing progosticators saying that Romney was going to win, and win in a landslide.

I've even read a thread on this forum that Robert's betrayal of us with ObamaCare was actually a GOOD thing, and a gift, handing us the 2012 election, and making it easier to remove ObamaCare.

The Problem all along has been that the Republican party really doesn't want to fight the effective fight that would win, and that involves returning government to its constitutional "box", and that problem has not changed one bit. 

The Republican Leadership still really doesn't want to remove ObamaCare, they're pushing for Amnesty, and still providing cover for Obama's Middle East excursions, and just a week ago voted secretly to give Syrian rebels arms, which is the same thing that got us the Benghazi attack, and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Why should we now, .... again, believe that the Republicans suddenly look any better to Americans than these Dems?

Have you suddenly forgotten 2010 mid term election? The next will be the total game changer and everything you just mentioned will be moot, the RINO will not be running things after 2014.
The people have been paying attention, they are pissed that the GOP is pushing amnesty after being promised for decades something would be done, Hell, McCon even campaigned on a border fence, it was all lies.

The base is pissed, the Dims know it, and the RINO know it, which is why the big push for amnesty, their backers have called in the chips because even they know their RINO pawns are getting the boot.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 05:48:06 AM
Have you suddenly forgotten 2010 mid term election? The next will be the total game changer and everything you just mentioned will be moot, the RINO will not be running things after 2014.
The people have been paying attention, they are pissed that the GOP is pushing amnesty after being promised for decades something would be done, Hell, McCon even campaigned on a border fence, it was all lies.

The base is pissed, the Dims know it, and the RINO know it, which is why the big push for amnesty, their backers have called in the chips because even they know their RINO pawns are getting the boot.

No, I have not forgotten 2010.

We're pissed, sure. But what are we going to do about it?  Replace Republicans with Dems?

We've got a lot of chances to replace incumbents and known RINOs with  other candidates, but how are we qualifying these candidates?

In 2010 we had a number of candidates sign the Tea Party pledge, sign it, but not adhere to it. And where is that pledge now? Google "Tea Party Pledge" and see what comes up.  It's leftist criticism of the "tea-bag****" pledge, but no results showing the actual pledge.

Have the Tea Parties become any more unified, and have they focused their agenda at all in a common message?   Have they worked to actually teach Americans about the Constitution?

I hear the Tea Parties saying they are now "more grass-roots" than they were before.  That's great, but not so great if they don't have a unified honed message.  Where's that message? What is that message?  The fact is those Tea Parties are still too ego-driven for those bastards to give up their fragile, ephemeral territory and unify with the other groups.

We're pissed,  but WHY are we pissed? 

For instance, who is actually stating that ObamaCare is grossly unconstitutional, regardless of the bullcrap the Court said, as in my signature?  If it's not unconstitutional, then why are we fighting it? Is it just a bad law, a bad "political decision", as Roberts indicated in his own ACA majority opinion that was not his job to protect us from? (Not the minority opinion he also wrote most of.)

Another for instance, in Hyperion's recent topic "Programming Alert" for Beck's interview with Nancy Mace, the challenger for the pernicious evil known as Senator Lindsay Graham.  Watch Beck's interview of Nancy Mace.   While Beck as a couple of specific questions, such as about border security, he really doesn't do all that good of job of getting to specifics.

Beck has a decided problem getting to the specifics of the Constitution in an applied manner, even though he had "Founder's Fridays" on his televised broadcast,  and to no surprise so do the Tea Parties themselves, and Conservatives as a whole.

That's why I've focused a message on the Constitution on this forum, and well  before coming here. 

Originally my intent more than two years ago was to start a forum with the goal of uniting The Tea Parties (or at least the leadership) in one location, under a common roof,  and a blog associated with that forum with important positional articles, written by myself or Tea Party leadership  (perhaps known as the "Tripwire", or whatever!).  However that whole thing died from infighting, backstabbing, and believe it or not,  a real problem among the members with believing we can actually open the eyes of Americans, even only of Conservatives, as to the original constitutional intent.   

To paraphrase from  Braveheart, "Conservatives cannae agree on the color o'shiete!" 

(In case you're wondering, I'm Stephen, and this, this is *my* Island.)

And to be blunt, some of those involved, good smart Conservatives, were seriously too scared to expose themselves and their families to that sort of public scrutiny, to real risk, with that concerned even more prevalent now than it was then, and supported by the uncovered scandals and deaths.

We need to focus, laddies, if there's still time.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
No, I have not forgotten 2010.

We're pissed, sure. But what are we going to do about it?  Replace Republicans with Dems?

We've got a lot of chances to replace incumbents and known RINOs with  other candidates, but how are we qualifying these candidates?

This is how different from the past, how?

QuoteIn 2010 we had a number of candidates sign the Tea Party pledge, sign it, but not adhere to it. And where is that pledge now? Google "Tea Party Pledge" and see what comes up.  It's leftist criticism of the "tea-bag****" pledge, but no results showing the actual pledge.

First off, who is supposed to write this pledge? To my knowledge, there is not set list of directives outside of smaller Govt and a return to the ideals of the Founders, but your link proves one thing, the left including RINO/libs are scared to death of the Tea party, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to discover many of those sites are a collaborative effort of both party's.

Quote
Have the Tea Parties become any more unified, and have they focused their agenda at all in a common message?   Have they worked to actually teach Americans about the Constitution?

Show me where the Tea movement is an actual party first.
But yes, there are many groups out there working on it's behalf, you just have to look for them.
Start here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

QuoteI hear the Tea Parties saying they are now "more grass-roots" than they were before.  That's great, but not so great if they don't have a unified honed message.  Where's that message? What is that message?  The fact is those Tea Parties are still too ego-driven for those bastards to give up their fragile, ephemeral territory and unify with the other groups.

And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?

We're pissed,  but WHY are we pissed? 

QuoteFor instance, who is actually stating that ObamaCare is grossly unconstitutional, regardless of the bullcrap the Court said, as in my signature?  If it's not unconstitutional, then why are we fighting it? Is it just a bad law, a bad "political decision", as Roberts indicated in his own ACA majority opinion that was not his job to protect us from? (Not the minority opinion he also wrote most of.)

Another for instance, in Hyperion's recent topic "Programming Alert" for Beck's interview with Nancy Mace, the challenger for the pernicious evil known as Senator Lindsay Graham.  Watch Beck's interview of Nancy Mace.   While Beck as a couple of specific questions, such as about border security, he really doesn't do all that good of job of getting to specifics.

Beck has a decided problem getting to the specifics of the Constitution in an applied manner, even though he had "Founder's Fridays" on his televised broadcast,  and to no surprise so do the Tea Parties themselves, and Conservatives as a whole.

That's why I've focused a message on the Constitution on this forum, and well  before coming here. 

Which has what to do with anything I said?
Try and not get too long winded and off topic, seriously, try and be a bit more brief, or you'll quickly lose my interest.

QuoteOriginally my intent more than two years ago was to start a forum with the goal of uniting The Tea Parties (or at least the leadership) in one location, under a common roof,  and a blog associated with that forum with important positional articles, written by myself or Tea Party leadership  (perhaps known as the "Tripwire", or whatever!).  However that whole thing died from infighting, backstabbing, and believe it or not,  a real problem among the members with believing we can actually open the eyes of Americans, even only of Conservatives, as to the original constitutional intent.   

To paraphrase from  Braveheart, "Conservatives cannae agree on the color o'shiete!" 

And I see why it failed, you want to dictate and put everyone in a neat little package that you're comfortable with.
But you fail to realize how many Tea supporters may not agree with your set of criteria, not all have the same vision which is why it is so appealing across demographic lines.
Just the thought of a smaller, less intrusive Govt is what made the Tea movement so attractive in the first place, and now you want to try and force all of it's supporters into agreeing with your personal vision.
That's a bit dictatorial, don't you think?

Quote(In case you're wondering, I'm Stephen, and this, this is *my* Island.)

And to be blunt, some of those involved, good smart Conservatives, were seriously too scared to expose themselves and their families to that sort of public scrutiny, to real risk, with that concerned even more prevalent now than it was then, and supported by the uncovered scandals and deaths.

We need to focus, laddies, if there's still time.

Ummmm....OK....

But please, try and keep it brief if at all possible, you are not the only one I respond to.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
This is how different from the past, how?

It's NOT different from the past, and that's my point! You can never hope to fix a problem with the same ignorant mindset that created it in the first place.  That ignorance has not lessened.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
First off, who is supposed to write this pledge? To my knowledge, there is not set list of directives outside of smaller Govt and a return to the ideals of the Founders, but your link proves one thing, the left including RINO/libs are scared to death of the Tea party, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to discover many of those sites are a collaborative effort of both party's.Show me where the Tea movement is an actual party first.

You're sounding like the leaders of the various tea party groups themselves!  They managed to piece together a pledge, or a couple pledges, in 2010, but they couldn't manage to create a unified pledge with all the tea parties signing on.

And "smaller government" is truly an ignorant expectation. It is merely a subjective relative measure, and about on par reducing this problem to mere "dislike" versus "like".  The Constitution doesn't mention "smaller" government anywhere; it references specific limitations on government.   Here's a thought: how about we go with the Constitution.  Deal?

Scared to death of the tea party?  Why should they be scared to death of the tea party? They've pushed through thelr legislation, they've corrupted the Court for decades to come.  They've gotten Obama elected, not just once, but twice, when he never even should have been on a ballot, but don't worry, we sure fixed them by putting McCain on the ballot when he wasn't qualified to be there either.   

They've emplaced spying on every aspect of our lives, and the Republicans, RINOs and even the Tea Party representatives like Michelle Bachmann,  are DEFENDING IT! They have us so cowed that no one even refers to the fact of ObamaCare being unconstitutional, despite the fact that it undeniably is so! 

Yeah, they're scared to death of the Tea Parties alright!

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
Show me where the Tea movement is an actual party first.
But yes, there are many groups out there working on it's behalf, you just have to look for them.
Start here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

HOW, how.... do you imagine that the Tea party not being an "actual party" is even relevant?  It's NOT!  The purpose of the Tea Party is an advocacy group, advocating for legitimate governance,... as defined by the U.S. Constitution. It has "party" at the end of the name because of those guys that tossed tea into Boston Harbor some time ago, and actually has nothing to do with being a political party, or even Ron Paul, unless he's that old.

"It's behalf"? What ITS? The Tea party? It's no "its".  DIdn't you just assert that yourself? "It" is a many-headed hydra,  and there's considerable question if it even has a unified body anywhere at all!  My point is precisely the fact that there are many tea party groups, and they are not unified. 

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM

Quote from: TripI hear the Tea Parties saying they are now "more grass-roots" than they were before.  That's great, but not so great if they don't have a unified honed message.  Where's that message? What is that message?  The fact is those Tea Parties are still too ego-driven for those bastards to give up their fragile, ephemeral territory and unify with the other groups.

And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?

You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up?  That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"?  And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.

Have you actually listened to the news lately, and actually followed those "tea parties" you're making these generalized statements about?

While they do not speak with any unified voice, and indeed have not indicated this in any sort of unison, at least "some" tea party groups are saying they now have a more effective ground movement in place locally to knock on doors, and approach people - hence "more grassroots."

As far as the possibility that you might be referring to me "backing up" the fact that the Tea Parties do not act together, do not work in unison, and have had major issues in this regard, I assume that you have actually paid attention to the news since 2010, caught the numerous stories about this infighting and competition, and can recognize on your own that there have been no unified statements from all the Tea Parties -- which is major problem.... not to mention one you yourself recognized even citing all the numerous groups, and referencing they are not an "actual party". 

But if you imagine that "smaller government" alone is gonna cut it, by God I sure hope that phrase causes absolute fear in the hearts of men.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
Which has what to do with anything I said?
Try and not get too long winded and off topic, seriously, try and be a bit more brief, or you'll quickly lose my interest.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING  to do with anything you said, which is why I brought it up.  You entirely overlooked the fact that those Tea Parties you believe everyone is so scared of, have no focus whatsoever.

I painted in the picture with detailed references so you could follow along, but evidently those references were too much for you, and you still did not follow along. However at least you're not demanding that I "back it up".

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
And I see why it failed, you want to dictate and put everyone in a neat little package that you're comfortable with.
But you fail to realize how many Tea supporters may not agree with your set of criteria, not all have the same vision which is why it is so appealing across demographic lines.
Just the thought of a smaller, less intrusive Govt is what made the Tea movement so attractive in the first place, and now you want to try and force all of it's supporters into agreeing with your personal vision.
That's a bit dictatorial, don't you think?

If you're going to be a jackass, please don't complain when I treat you as one.

NO, you don't see "why it failed".   Nothing I said involved anything about me "dictating" to anyone, nor myself putting people in any sort of neat little package.

In point of fact, I insisted on having NO operational control over the whole thing, and did not want to even be a forum moderator, which I have even declined here on this forum, when offered.

All I did was come up with a plan, a name for the forum,  and offered my writing skills, and the idea that these articles written by myself and others  from the blog, would serve to fuel the debate and discussion in the forum. 

The tea party group leads would actually arrange themselves as they themselves chose, with the forum and site only being a neutral area for them to exercise jointly, without any one group having any original control, a major ego hurdle being bypassed.

That's it! And it's still a pretty damn good plan.

And the source of that "vision" is actually the United States Constitution itself, and not some half-baked subjective idea such as "smaller government".  There's no restoring the Constitution piecemeal, only so far as some might like personally.  It has to be either all or nothing. And if we do only "part", then what  we do will not actually accomplish anything, and that's part of the problem; "smaller government" isn't even a reasonable starting point.

The forum collapse never even made it to approaching the Tea Parties, although I had  established contacts with some of them, some going  back to their nascence. The problem was the person that volunteered to take the domain name that I and one other came up with, and we all  had voted for among numerous names, and  then went and applied it to a server, and actually intended to make himself King, and ban some people outright, and promote his buddies to Mods.   This was a deal breaker involving deliberate betrayal, and resulted in months of heated discussion,and  legal threats,  in order to just get back the domain name, and remove the software. 

It actually had nothing to do with any action on my part.   I'm not the sort to lead by authority, but rather by my ideas and character.

I'm sure those problems are really not all that different from what is going on between the tea party groups themselves, at least when they try to establish some sort of unity. 

Next time, before telling us what you think, you might  consider actually thinking first.   

Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 08:14:21 PM
Do you all really imagine that Rand Paul has the ability to be elected president?

I think he does.  I think he's more groomed for the long campaign haul, having been around it.  I also think he'll assemble his own campaign team instead of getting swindled by a bunch of scam artists.

Quote
What coalitions has he been able to form, a problem he shares with his father?

I think he pulls in an overlap of various voters.  He gets some Paul voters, conservative voters, libertarians, independents, and a good number of Dems.  He isn't a proto-typical GOP candidate.
 

Quote
Rand Paul's greatest endeavor has been that prominent filibuster. How did that end?

The GOP bar is set low, yes, but Rand has at least been standing up and at least bringing up the Constitution in his interviews, etc.  Paul is establishing the tone as well.

Quote
It ended with Rand making the statement that the President can appoint whomever he wants to office, which not only is not what the Constitution indicates, but also Rand, by this statement,  totally neutered the purpose of his own filibuster!

The President can't nominate who he wants for CIA Director?  I may need some edumacation on that. 

Quote
Where in any of this is the sharp mind, shrewd judgment, keen focused goals, and ability to unite people, that are all necessary skills to lead this country out of the abyss?

I think Paul possesses all those.  He is whip smart, slaps down MSM talking points, and brings up The Constitution in all his interviews and responses.  He runs circles around anyone who tries to challenge him.  During the campaign, the MSM will hit him hard to be a racist, and he'll eat that up and make them look foolish.

One thing I do like about Paul (or maybe the very few other pure conservatives out there like Cruz, Lee, Goudy) is that this is the kind of environment that Reagan emerged from.

Rejection of the abominations of recent liberalism (Obama-Carter), still full of trepidation regarding the previous GOP guy (Bush-Nixon).

These guys should study how Reagan used this particular dynamic to his advantage.  The biggest part was his honesty, clarity, and consistency.  But he did take advantage of a basic rejection of both camps.

Reagan was every bit the enemy of the old-guard GOP.  They were on a mission to destroy him just like they've done with Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, West, Cain, etc.

Maybe we should study how they did defeat those guys recently, and maybe even how they beat back Goldwater, in contrast to how Reagan kicked their asses.

Food for thought.

It's funny, when I think of how Reagan beat both the GOP establishment and the dems.......it reminds me of the recent thread about using the dems-libs anger and disenfranchisement with Obama, for a TP campaign.

Two things that go together nicely.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:52:26 AM
You can never hope to fix a problem with the same ignorant mindset that created it in the first place. 

And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?

You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up?  That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"?  And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.

Have you actually listened to the news lately, and actually followed those "tea parties" you're making these generalized statements about?

If you're going to be a jackass, please don't complain when I treat you as one.

In point of fact, I insisted on having NO operational control over the whole thing, and did not want to even be a forum moderator, which I have even declined here on this forum, when offered.

Next time, before telling us what you think, you might  consider actually thinking first.

Damn son, don't get so bitter and angry that you turn into pure vinegar.

Somebody offered this guy a moderator job   ?  Dang, give your head a shake, then a sharp crack with a stick.  All posts under 5000 words would be deleted.

The thing I liked most about Reagan, was that he was a happy warrior. He never seemed to get angry. He was always confident in what he was doing and that the American People would come around -- and they did.  A few are like him, but I doubt we'll see another that can motivate the People the way he did.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 03:08:37 PM
One thing I do like about Paul (or maybe the very few other pure conservatives out there like Cruz, Lee, Goudy) is that this is the kind of environment that Reagan emerged from.

Rejection of the abominations of recent liberalism (Obama-Carter), still full of trepidation regarding the previous GOP guy (Bush-Nixon).

These guys should study how Reagan used this particular dynamic to his advantage.  The biggest part was his honesty, clarity, and consistency.  But he did take advantage of a basic rejection of both camps.

Reagan was every bit the enemy of the old-guard GOP.  They were on a mission to destroy him just like they've done with Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, West, Cain, etc.

Maybe we should study how they did defeat those guys recently, and maybe even how they beat back Goldwater, in contrast to how Reagan kicked their asses.

Food for thought.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:52:26 AM
It's NOT different from the past, and that's my point! You can never hope to fix a problem with the same ignorant mindset that created it in the first place.  That ignorance has not lessened.
Which is why I posed the question. Wh was 2010 so different than the previous mid term?
Now apply that to 2014, and you have your answer.

QuoteYou're sounding like the leaders of the various tea party groups themselves!  They managed to piece together a pledge, or a couple pledges, in 2010, but they couldn't manage to create a unified pledge with all the tea parties signing on.

Believe it or not, that's a good thing, alienating certain people with strict standards has never worked.
The idea is to first get people elected and the incumbents out, it's those incumbents that get too comfortable.
Am I making any sense here?

QuoteAnd "smaller government" is truly an ignorant expectation. It is merely a subjective relative measure, and about on par reducing this problem to mere "dislike" versus "like".  The Constitution doesn't mention "smaller" government anywhere; it references specific limitations on government.   Here's a thought: how about we go with the Constitution.  Deal?

Man, you really are a bit thick. If we were to have a candidate campaign on your platform, they'd never see the light of day, that is just a reality. First you have to get elected, then we can start to shrink Govt in so many ways, simply quit funding programs, it really is that simple, but we have to get people elected first.

QuoteScared to death of the tea party?  Why should they be scared to death of the tea party? They've pushed through thelr legislation, they've corrupted the Court for decades to come.  They've gotten Obama elected, not just once, but twice, when he never even should have been on a ballot, but don't worry, we sure fixed them by putting McCain on the ballot when he wasn't qualified to be there either.   

Apples and oranges, you're talking about the Presidential election, I'm talking about the mid term, a time when libs turnout is low.

QuoteThey've emplaced spying on every aspect of our lives, and the Republicans, RINOs and even the Tea Party representatives like Michelle Bachmann,  are DEFENDING IT! They have us so cowed that no one even refers to the fact of ObamaCare being unconstitutional, despite the fact that it undeniably is so! 

Yeah, they're scared to death of the Tea Parties alright!

And they got caught redhanded, didn't they?

QuoteHOW, how.... do you imagine that the Tea party not being an "actual party" is even relevant?  It's NOT!  The purpose of the Tea Party is an advocacy group, advocating for legitimate governance,... as defined by the U.S. Constitution. It has "party" at the end of the name because of those guys that tossed tea into Boston Harbor some time ago, and actually has nothing to do with being a political party, or even Ron Paul, unless he's that old.

You can't be serious, I know you're brighter than that statement.
If the Tea movement was so insignificant, why was the IRS targeting such an undistinguished rag tag gorup[?

Quote"It's behalf"? What ITS? The Tea party? It's no "its".  DIdn't you just assert that yourself? "It" is a many-headed hydra,  and there's considerable question if it even has a unified body anywhere at all!  My point is precisely the fact that there are many tea party groups, and they are not unified. 
And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up?  That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"?  And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.

Geeez, settle down and get down off the table, I asked only because no one in my group said anything about being anything but a grassroots movement, many times people say shit like that, and it gets applied to the entire movement.
This is why I asked for actual facts, and not some moron speaking out his ass, got it?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up?  That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"?  And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.

QuoteHave you actually listened to the news lately, and actually followed those "tea parties" you're making these generalized statements about?

While they do not speak with any unified voice, and indeed have not indicated this in any sort of unison, at least "some" tea party groups are saying they now have a more effective ground movement in place locally to knock on doors, and approach people - hence "more grassroots."

Yes, I'm in one of them, we do that and far more, some groups were'nt as organized early on, it only makes sense that they are honing ways to get their message out.
Does that make them more grassroots, or more organized, I believe "more grassroots" infers returning to ones roots, not growing.

QuoteAs far as the possibility that you might be referring to me "backing up" the fact that the Tea Parties do not act together, do not work in unison, and have had major issues in this regard, I assume that you have actually paid attention to the news since 2010, caught the numerous stories about this infighting and competition, and can recognize on your own that there have been no unified statements from all the Tea Parties -- which is major problem.... not to mention one you yourself recognized even citing all the numerous groups, and referencing they are not an "actual party". 

Wait, you actually heard this on the news? Really? Are you actually admitting you believe the shit the media puts out, without question?
Geee, got me, it must be true then, it was on the NEWS.

QuoteBut if you imagine that "smaller government" alone is gonna cut it, by God I sure hope that phrase causes absolute fear in the hearts of men.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING  to do with anything you said, which is why I brought it up.  You entirely overlooked the fact that those Tea Parties you believe everyone is so scared of, have no focus whatsoever.

I painted in the picture with detailed references so you could follow along, but evidently those references were too much for you, and you still did not follow along. However at least you're not demanding that I "back it up".


If you're going to be a jackass, please don't complain when I treat you as one.

Do you always take everything so negatively personal, do you think everyone is attacking you?

QuoteNO, you don't see "why it failed".   Nothing I said involved anything about me "dictating" to anyone, nor myself putting people in any sort of neat little package.

In point of fact, I insisted on having NO operational control over the whole thing, and did not want to even be a forum moderator, which I have even declined here on this forum, when offered.

All I did was come up with a plan, a name for the forum,  and offered my writing skills, and the idea that these articles written by myself and others  from the blog, would serve to fuel the debate and discussion in the forum. 

OK

QuoteThe tea party group leads would actually arrange themselves as they themselves chose, with the forum and site only being a neutral area for them to exercise jointly, without any one group having any original control, a major ego hurdle being bypassed.

That's it! And it's still a pretty damn good plan.

Excellent idea.

QuoteAnd the source of that "vision" is actually the United States Constitution itself, and not some half-baked subjective idea such as "smaller government".  There's no restoring the Constitution piecemeal, only so far as some might like personally.  It has to be either all or nothing. And if we do only "part", then what  we do will not actually accomplish anything, and that's part of the problem; "smaller government" isn't even a reasonable starting point.

Seriously.... All or nothing? It took 200 years to crew it it up, there is no way in Hell anyone is going to reverse that in one term.
You start out slow, you simply defund the big ones first, EPA, DOE and so on, but to simply eliminate all Govt bureaucracy in one term is certain suicide for the movement, any movement no matter how much support they have.
At least I'm being realistic.

QuoteThe forum collapse never even made it to approaching the Tea Parties, although I had  established contacts with some of them, some going  back to their nascence. The problem was the person that volunteered to take the domain name that I and one other came up with, and we all  had voted for among numerous names, and  then went and applied it to a server, and actually intended to make himself King, and ban some people outright, and promote his buddies to Mods.   This was a deal breaker involving deliberate betrayal, and resulted in months of heated discussion,and  legal threats,  in order to just get back the domain name, and remove the software. 

It actually had nothing to do with any action on my part.   I'm not the sort to lead by authority, but rather by my ideas and character.

Partners can be a problem, I'm blessed with Taxed, couldn't ask for a better partner.

QuoteI'm sure those problems are really not all that different from what is going on between the tea party groups themselves, at least when they try to establish some sort of unity. 

Welcome to the real world.

QuoteNext time, before telling us what you think, you might  consider actually thinking first.

All I had to go on was your posts here, and yes, it reflected upon my conclusion.

I don't know why this quoted within a quote box, my bad.

Quote from: Yawn on August 09, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
The thing I liked most about Reagan, was that he was a happy warrior. He never seemed to get angry. He was always confident in what he was doing and that the American People would come around -- and they did.  A few are like him, but I doubt we'll see another that can motivate the People the way he did.

Reagan was a reformed Hollywood liberal democrat.

It pisses me off, that people think that all democrat voters are a lost cause.

It really pisses me off, that the GOP steadfastly refuses to present a conservative, small government message. There are a lot of democrat voters that wake up and go to work every day, that are yearning for another Reagan.

Quote from: Yawn on August 09, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
The thing I liked most about Reagan, was that he was a happy warrior. He never seemed to get angry. He was always confident in what he was doing and that the American People would come around -- and they did.  A few are like him, but I doubt we'll see another that can motivate the People the way he did.

This is true.  The guy LOVED America, and was happy about it.  That may have been his secret weapon, people of all stripes were happy about this, themselves.  Bush 1 was a pale copycat with "points of light", and Bush 2 seems to have been more globalist than American, the GOP version of old money-Bildeberger vs. liberal one-world socialism.

It's too bad that the Clintons, then Obama on steroids, decided to sell hating America.

We should be at a point where 60-80% of America are sick of that shit.  A real hero could run with it.  Personally I like West, Cain, Condi Rice as people who could sell the positive version.  Maybe Paul, Cruz, and pals can.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 07:44:18 AM

In 2010 we had a number of candidates sign the Tea Party pledge, sign it, but not adhere to it. And where is that pledge now? Google "Tea Party Pledge" and see what comes up.  It's leftist criticism of the "tea-bag****" pledge, but no results showing the actual pledge.

Trip,

Is this the pledge you're talking about?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/24/a-tea-party-pledge-to-the-112th-congress/

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Believe it or not, that's a good thing, alienating certain people with strict standards has never worked.
The idea is to first get people elected and the incumbents out, it's those incumbents that get too comfortable.
Am I making any sense here?

Man, you really are a bit thick. If we were to have a candidate campaign on your platform, they'd never see the light of day, that is just a reality. First you have to get elected, then we can start to shrink Govt in so many ways, simply quit funding programs, it really is that simple, but we have to get people elected first.
Apples and oranges, you're talking about the Presidential election, I'm talking about the mid term, a time when libs turnout is low.

You are, but only to a certain level, and in a very limited sense, while ignoring the broader picture. 

It's not as if I'm pulling those "strict standards" out of a hat, and as I tried to  point out, it's not as if the Constitution picks and chooses the limits on government randomly. In other posts in other threads, I've tried to demonstrate that the Constitution is all inter-constructed and inter-reliant, involving the same philosophy throughout, and not by just random barriers. . That "we" in general don't understand this fact has repeatedly, over this country's history (particularly since the Civil War) worked in the favor of those Progressives, and worked against our own position, and we've actually given away  our freedoms - repeatedly.   

That's the big picture - generally.

If we "got" that big picture, there wouldn't be a 16th Amendment, because the tax on income is not only a direct tax prohibited by the Constitution, but also it enables the government to institute agendas against individuals and groups.  Yet there are "conservatives" today who don't get that, and view the more-full argument, when I present it, as if I were presenting some fringe tax protestor's argument.  They act like dutiful government cogs, in believing it is somehow their patriotic duty to pay income tax, and that if income tax on their wages ever were unconstitutional, it was made so by the 16th amendment's ratification.  They're incapable of recognizing that certain amendments are actually still in conflict with the Constitution, regardless of their ratification.

We cannot simply just pick and choose parts of the Constitution that we want to institute, because in the process we're throwing out the whole of the document, invalidating it on our own, and in the process validating the Constitution's continuing de-construction, and invalidation.

As far as those incumbents, it seems a valid approach on paper, but it really doesn't work in practice, and has never worked throughout history.  And it won't ever work, because we only replace a lesser portion of those in either house of Congress at any given time, and the corruptions that we need to reject are institutionalized.

In application, we see this in what the Politicians are willing to say, and do, even the "Tea Party" candidates.  For instance, I fully believe that Michelle Bachmann recognized Romney's "Fifty Flavors of Democracy"  to be a gross corruption of the 10th Amwendment, and her comments after the election furthered my suspicion.  However Bachmann was unwilling to remove herself from the pack, and put focus on herself to stand for an important issue,  because ultimately pointing out that issue, 'impaling herself" on that ground, was not going to change the issue's corrupt application, even though it was a real chance for Bachmann to differentiate herself from the other 6 or so candidates on stage, beyond being just "the woman".

This process continues unabated whether an interim election, or a presidential election.  Obama just complicates the process because he is a symbol, a token for the black oppression and civil rights, even before he does anything.

You say you think I'm the one that's thick, but you're the one ignoring that big picture, and comforting yourself with vapid platitudes that really don't work, have never worked except in a very small scale, and only further the causes and problems that we face.  It's like relieving yourself in a dark serge suit; it may make you feel warm and comfy for the moment,  but in the long run it only furthers the problems.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
And they got caught redhanded, didn't they?

You can't be serious, I know you're brighter than that statement.
If the Tea movement was so insignificant, why was the IRS targeting such an undistinguished rag tag gorup?

They got caught. Big deal!

What did the news this past week show? The IRS continues to target tea party groups despite being caught.  Adn the NSA is still continuing its data collection.   Did you honestly believe that the IRS was going to suddenly stop prejudicial targeting of the Tea Parties and  other patriot groups? Are we really that naive?

The IRS was targeting the Tea Parties because they represent the represent a real chance to get the Truth out, unflitered by an alphet-soup government controlled media.  As a multi-headed hydra they are very difficult to control, but this ignores the fact that those Tea Parties are nowhere near as effective as they should be, as a result of being that multi-headed hydra -- which is pretty much undeniable.

The IRS is targeting tea party groups because we have an uncontrolled criminal government, and a controlled compliant  media.

And frankly, I think you're smart enough to recognize this, but you're making your  perspective contingent upon  idealized platitudes, rather than the facts repeatedly before you.  You're deliberately not thinking, not applying even simple reason.  While this may be immediately comforting, it is not all that effective (reference to that "dark serge suit" again).

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Geeez, settle down and get down off the table, I asked only because no one in my group said anything about being anything but a grassroots movement, many times people say shit like that, and it gets applied to the entire movement.
This is why I asked for actual facts, and not some moron speaking out his ass, got it?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up?  That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"?  And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.

In actual fact, simple, generalized statements do not require being "backed up" and cannot legitimately be met with demand for facts.   What requires factual support and backup reference are extraordinary statements. 

The recognition that the Tea Parties are a "grass roots" movement is not in any way an extraordinary statement.  As such, the appropriate response is "what do you mean by that?", or "how is that relevant?", not an officious and inappropriate,  "And I do mean facts".

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Yes, I'm in one of them, we do that and far more, some groups were'nt as organized early on, it only makes sense that they are honing ways to get their message out.
Does that make them more grassroots, or more organized, I believe "more grassroots" infers returning to ones roots, not growing.

You can believe whatever the flock you want, and you're apparently inclined to do so regardless of fact.   However in context of the application of "grassroots", there is no associated meaning that implies they are not growing.  It is meant to show they are pursing more local methods of affect, rather than national visibility.  While this approach may show some limited positive result, it is still ignoring the enormous problem of those many hydra heads, no matter how small and local, not having a unified vision.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Wait, you actually heard this on the news? Really? Are you actually admitting you believe the shit the media puts out, without question?
Geee, got me, it must be true then, it was on the NEWS.

I'm comfortable with going with a Tea Party Patriots representative,  Jenny Beth Martin, speaking out on several conservative programs, at least so far as that organization itself, but not necessarily for the the other heads of the hydra.    You're applying a gross generalization here, without being aware of the particular facts, and instead only choosing to ignore them (despite your call for proof), and that never achieves a valid result, much less constitutes an effective approach.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Do you always take everything so negatively personal, do you think everyone is attacking you?

You were attacking me personally, and your condemnation of me regarding that previous forum, which you knew nothing about, and this personalization has continued on into this post with repeated digs such as "brighter than that" and "a bit thick", when from my own perspective,  the problem rests with your own  naive and even desperate  reliance on general platitudes, when the history of these past 200 years show that these really don't work, and are actually the problem itself. 

As I stated, one can never fix a problem with the same mind-set and methods that created the problem to begin with.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Seriously.... All or nothing? It took 200 years to crew it it up, there is no way in Hell anyone is going to reverse that in one term.
You start out slow, you simply defund the big ones first, EPA, DOE and so on, but to simply eliminate all Govt bureaucracy in one term is certain suicide for the movement, any movement no matter how much support they have.
At least I'm being realistic.

And all you've done by this picking and choosing, is validate the deconstruction of the Constitution, and guaranteed your own defeat.  There is nothing stopping the continuing degradation of the constitution, and in fact you've turned it into a battle that will invariably be lost -- and these past 200 years are proof of that.   

You've turned the singular vision of a "specific form" of government which we are guaranteed, with specific limitations on the authority of the federal government, into  "any form of government", and whatever we might take back at any moment, with no vision whatsoever -- thereby ensuring the battle continues, and validating the other side's deconstruction.

This won't work.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Partners can be a problem, I'm blessed with Taxed, couldn't ask for a better partner.
Welcome to the real world.All I had to go on was your posts here, and yes, it reflected upon my conclusion.

Taxed is a good man. I've recognized a rare sense about him to go for less heavy-handed and  "hands off",  which is a valuable commodity, and I told him so early on.  I also forewarned him that I am a bit of a Catalyst, but that has its pluses, because it get's people thinking.    My approach is rather deliberate and unapologetic.  If I were to apologize for putting a definitive argument on the table with a "by your leave", while I might keep the waters calm, there would be no winds to change our position.

And we most certainly need to change our position.