Should The Tea Party Split From The Republicans and form their own party?

[Kaz]

Interesting....I didnt think they allowed any democrats in here?

They do allow Democrats, but Democrats have to back up what they say so they don't last long.  What does that have to do with what I said?

Liberals crack me up, the world is "republican" and "democrat" to you.  If I'm not one, I'm the other.  It's all you can grasp.  Actually I'm a libertarian.  That means I'm fiscally conservative like Republicans, except I mean it.  I'm socially liberal like Democrats, except I mean it.  And I think our military should only be used to defend the United States.  Which isn't like either one.

I'm good if you want to continue to boil it down to that I'm not Republican, so I'm a Democrat.  I'd hate to keep you up all night trying to solve a paradox.  Not Republican, and not Democrat?  At the same time?   What?

[TeeMan]

Your "I posted a very long post on what the nature of a true conservative is....tooo bad you missed it" is a link to a website on a blueprint for third parties?  LOL, thanks for clearing that up for me.

I looked for it but couldn't find it....maybe the rooster deleted it. 

Anyhow...figured you missed that one too.

[TeeMan]

They do allow Democrats, but Democrats have to back up what they say so they don't last long.  What does that have to do with what I said?

Liberals crack me up, the world is "republican" and "democrat" to you.  If I'm not one, I'm the other.  It's all you can grasp.  Actually I'm a libertarian.  That means I'm fiscally conservative like Republicans, except I mean it.  I'm socially liberal like Democrats, except I mean it.  And I think our military should only be used to defend the United States.  Which isn't like either one.

I'm good if you want to continue to boil it down to that I'm not Republican, so I'm a Democrat.  I'd hate to keep you up all night trying to solve a paradox.  Not Republican, and not Democrat?  At the same time?   What?

I think I have heard of libertarians but never talked to one....irregardless they play no important role.

[TeeMan]

They do allow Democrats, but Democrats have to back up what they say so they don't last long.  What does that have to do with what I said?

Liberals crack me up, the world is "republican" and "democrat" to you.  If I'm not one, I'm the other.  It's all you can grasp.  Actually I'm a libertarian.  That means I'm fiscally conservative like Republicans, except I mean it.  I'm socially liberal like Democrats, except I mean it.  And I think our military should only be used to defend the United States.  Which isn't like either one.

I'm good if you want to continue to boil it down to that I'm not Republican, so I'm a Democrat.  I'd hate to keep you up all night trying to solve a paradox.  Not Republican, and not Democrat?  At the same time?   What?

Like it or not we have a 2 party system....that could change next time but not likely.

[TeeMan]

Well you're here.

It's also very telling how much time you spend criticizing this forum...

I have responded to their personal attacks...some like to dish it out but can't take it.

[TeeMan]

Your post that only rich people think government taxes and spends too much, stands on it's own to show you are not one.

I'll take your view that I should read all your posts before responding to any of them under advisement.  To be honest, I'm thinking the lack of specificity in showing me this post means even you know you're not going to hold up very well under scrutiny, but that's for you to decide.

You mischaracterize what I said...if you want to quote me...then quote me...don't post a personal characterization and claim it is what I said.

What I basically said was that only the Rich are pre-occupied by that...aka hung up on it...and that the slogan of 'lower taxes and smaller government' is not something that will enable a winning strategy....simply re-inforces the idea that the Republicans are the party of the rich....you will not garner many votes by proclaiming that.

[Kaz]

You mischaracterize what I said...if you want to quote me...then quote me...don't post a personal characterization and claim it is what I said

Note I didn't put quote marks, that means it was a paraphrase.  Fair enough, let's go to the video tape.

Those who are hung up on the mantra of "Smaller Government and lower taxes" are primarily an elitist group....and cannot see that much more than that needs to be done to put America back on track.

Hmmm...seems I paraphrased pretty well...

[TeeMan]

First, "irregardless" isn't a word.  The word you are looking for is, "regardless."

Second, it's not "rich people" who think the government is taxing and spending too much.  It's anyone who is not a criminal who advocates the forced confiscation and redistribution of money from people who earned it to people who didn't.  You are supporting the forces of evil.

Now you must be trying to convince me you are a dumbass--first of all.....'Irregardless'........is a woid.

Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. Here's why.

"Irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.


1.It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.


2.Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.


3.Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.


4.It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.


5.It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris, roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission....TimMonihyan


Now in regards...to and I quote   "it's not "rich people" who think the government is taxing and spending too much.  It's anyone who is not a criminal who advocates the forced confiscation and redistribution of money from people who earned it to people who didn't.  You are supporting the forces of evil."
[/quote]

Nevertheless.....for the government to function someone must pay taxes....and guess what who has the best ability to pay taxes? 

Jesus said:  "Render unto Caesar the things that are Ceasar's"  ....but of course no one likes to have to pay taxes...and no earthly government is perfect nor will they ever be.

It is not the taxing and spending that is so bad in America.....it is what and who they are spending it on. 

I agree that it is unfair...taxing one class more than others....but life is not fair and nothing anyone ever does will make it fair.

In a nutshell....most voters...aka the overwhelming numbers of voters are not rich thus...to try and win an election with the slogan of "smaller government and lower taxes is not a winning formula"  and that seems to be a point too many...maybe the majority of tea partiers cannot get beyond."

Now of course they have every right to want that, to pursue it and lobby for it but to fail to understand they will never win a Presidential election with that slogan is pathetic.

Now basically I am talking to republicans....as a libertarian you are irrlevant in regards to being a factor in the next election.

However, any one who has any hopes whatever for a  fair tax system should definitely stay away from the democratic party.

In other words, in the world of politics one must learn the art of compromise.  What it comes down to  is the reality that any party that champions the minorities and the poor will be motivated to distrubute more tax money to those groups and take more from your group.  So anyone who wants to keep more of their money should advocate for the most conservative party possible.

Now what the elitist republicans fail to comprehend is that there are many factions in the republican party but the largest faction and the one that has the key to a republican victory is the White Working Class.

In order to win that crucial vote they must learn who they are and what they want.

[TeeMan]

Your link is an opinion piece that focuses on George Wallace. Really? That is the best you have?

I knew that piece would be over your head...no suprise at all. 

Again...you should stick to sucking up to the mods.

[Cryptic Bert]

Like it or not we have a 2 party system....that could change next time but not likely.

Once again you contradict yourself. Remember the article about Wallace?

[TeeMan]

Once again you contradict yourself. Remember the article about Wallace?

Missed that part about it could change next time eh?   

[Cryptic Bert]

I have responded to their personal attacks...some like to dish it out but can't take it.

Stop whining and read a book. Your ignorance is showing.

[dignitasnews]

By all means NO. That said, the establishment of the GOP should recognize, that despite being fundamentally right on the issues, they are losing the war of words with the left. The Tea Party movement, although we are a bit more abrasive, a bit less patient, can help move the dial and wake up some of the sheep with our more bombastic style.

[walkstall]

Interesting....I didnt think they allowed any democrats in here?

Your on and I have not moved you to The Pit yet. 

[Cryptic Bert]

By all means NO. That said, the establishment of the GOP should recognize, that despite being fundamentally right on the issues, they are losing the war of words with the left. The Tea Party movement, although we are a bit more abrasive, a bit less patient, can help move the dial and wake up some of the sheep with our more bombastic style.

What have the establishment been right on?