Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 08:04:13 AM
Of course, as a Conservative, I see the silver lining.

He exposed the GOP to be  nothing more than a bunch of capitulating liberals helping him destroy the country.
Better late than never.

Leading back to the hard pragmatic work required to construct a viable third party in all U.S. states and territories. It's clear that although there are many LOCAL Tea Party groups and A FEW self-styled national coordination efforts, the TP has not yet reached that final level of political legitimacy. (No national convention, declaration of party planks, nomination of a national slate, etc.).

Yes, the GOP turned to jellyfish and no they do not deserve our vote. But to stay home in 2014 allows off-year elections to swing to radical trash like what we now see in the White House. Statewide parties must be formed and then perform well-enough to merit inclusion on federal ballots.

As with any movement (from Know-Nothings to Mugwumps to Republican-Democrats) it begins with word-of-mouth, expands into reading material for careful reading and consideration...and right there the Internet is both a boon and a bane because without PRINT material (and BUDGETS to pay for it), the newcomer and outsider to all this political stuff just isn't going to bother.

Write down a site where he can FIND that material, or have a business card, then you're talking real word-of-mouth advertising. You're enticing converts. You're out there promoting your beliefs.

Ain't happening except through very tiny budgets of the few serious TP groups. They're relying more on the Web and the casual links they can drop in, wherever they go.

I offer a suggestion that you create a links-list of the TP groups representing state-level organization, and similar sites tracking local groups closest to a given reader's location. Dangle that carrot. Make them hungry for more about what you're selling.

Did the actual transitions and creations of new parties always come from really crappy time like today ? 

It doesn't seem to have happened during the depression, so at least not then.

It would be interesting to assess the conditions that did give birth to a new party.

Also the birth of the modern dem party, built solely on LBJ stealing credit for CRA of 1964, when the dems were actually the party against it right up until the GOP made it happen.  Shame on us for letting the bastard do it.  But we can do it too, espcially with the anti-Obama issues that we discussed earlier.  We'd better start getting medieval and fighting fire with fire.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 07:50:04 AM
Does the term "Obsessive Compulsive" mean anything to you?
Trip, I'm sure you're a genuinely nice bright guy, however, this is a forum, a place where people share ideas, debate certain issues, hope to sway others into understanding the Conservative message in an effort to convince a large portion of the country that what is best for the individual is to free others from the grip of a tyrannical govt that allows the individual to prosper.

However you literally obsess when someone disagrees with what you believe to be the correct path.
Mine is different with the same end goal, yet because I disagree
There have been people down through the ages that dictated the path of the people under them at the point of a gun, which was the only way to achieve their end goal.
Is that what you're proposing?

I asked you to provide names of others that buy into your scheme, yet nothing, and do you know why that is?
Because most sane people acknowledge what the outcome would be with more than 70% of the people of this Nation against it, but noooo, not you.

Of course I saw you asked to provide names, but that's as insipid as the challenge itself  that you asked to provide those names in regard to - considering the Constitution to be "a scheme".. You didn't consider my response, much less  grasp it, because you're sitting in your own subjective position and imagining it to be the perspective others share.

Insisting on the applicability of the Constitution does not involve going back "200 years", and your saying it does involves a negative, gross  hyperbole that really is disturbing for a guy claiming to be a Conservative.   Actually applying the Constitution will not take us back 200 years, and would not deny something like Social Security; people paid in money to the government and are entitled to the turn on their investment from that.

The Constitution is in fact the law of the land. It has additions (amendments) that go back far more recently, but these do  not involve support for what the government is doing, and even referencing those things. 

For example, the 14th Amendment allows the federal government to penalize the States for denying equal protection to every citizen, but not however it wants. The second  of  the 14th Amendment indicates how the federal government can apply this, which is specifically proportionally limiting the representation of that state in Congress.   That application is entirely within the authority of the federal government according to the Constitution.

The 15th Amendment speaks to voting and indicates the federal government has the right to make whatever "appropriate legislation" that is necessary in support of that franchise.   We saw this discussed in the media just recently with Court's hearing of the Voting Rights Act.  The problem is that how the Voting Rights Act was implemented regarding that 15th Amendment was not "appropriate" by  the terms Constitution; The federal government does not have the authority to grant itself new powers in new areas, punishing a precinct in implementing that VRA.

Your idea that I am in some rarefied group is just nonsense.  When people speak of "RINOs" what exactly do you believe they mean? If someone believes that the voting might involve whether or not we implement the Constitution, they're a RINO, and no sort of Conservative.  If someone believes that our borders remaining open is in any way a legitimate perspective for any country, much less this country, they're a RINO, and a progressive globalist.     

And if someone believes that actually applying the Constitution is some sort of wildly irresponsible "scheme",  then they are undeniably a RINO.   People that refuse to recognize the limits on the federal government established by the Constitution are not supporting any sort of legitimate government at all.


The idea that actually applying the Constitution means that we have to regress back "200 years" is utter nonsense, showing nothing but the same scare tactic mentality used by the far left Socialists in support of big government, so as to preserve only one's personal perspective.  It is the same method employed in saying that the Republicans want to return to slavery, want to deny women the vote and blacks the vote, and have old people eating cat food without health care by the far Left.  It's not just absurd, but idiotic and dishonest in the extreme.

We don't have to go without clean water and clean air; We just no longer have a tyrannical federal government dictating those terms in irrational manners, and crippling our society by subjective and despotic terms.  Communities all over the country have learned that windmills are not a viable energy source to replace coal, that having California's constantly varying grades of gasoline is not reasonable.  And we're learning at this moment that the federal government denying people the ownership of their own bodies, and taking over health care, only can result in horrific results.

Your "200 years", calling the application of the Constitution a "scheme", and gradual restoration of it,   is a part of the problem, and not any sort of solution. 

Government has set limits in this country. If you want to change those limits, then Amend the Constitution!  However this pretends that those limits themselves are just random, subjective, and not there for any absolute reason.

Pretending that we can in any way get back to the Constitution by some sort of gradual process, is just asinine, because that gradual process itself inherently involves the idea  that any point between total discard of the Constitution, and full implementation of it, is inherently valid, thereby making ANYTHING as valid as anything else.

By this "scheme" of your own, what you have done is subject us to unrestrained despotic tyranny, where any perspective might be equally valid at any given time.  This is no better than the Progressive Marxists, who are doing PRECISELY the same thing!  Talk about a scheme, but at least they have some sort of vision!   Yours is actually the most corrupt scheme of government possible, where there are no set standards, no boundaries, no means to judge,  and therefore no real system of law, and not possibly any vision at all, but rather only subjective judgment of a few based on no set standard!   

From this point forward I expect you to no longer comment about RINOs, nor complain about the Republican party, because you yourself are only applying your own subjective evaluation, and are no better than them.

Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 09:07:39 AM
Leading back to the hard pragmatic work required to construct a viable third party in all U.S. states and territories. It's clear that although there are many LOCAL Tea Party groups and A FEW self-styled national coordination efforts, the TP has not yet reached that final level of political legitimacy. (No national convention, declaration of party planks, nomination of a national slate, etc.).

Yes, the GOP turned to jellyfish and no they do not deserve our vote. But to stay home in 2014 allows off-year elections to swing to radical trash like what we now see in the White House. Statewide parties must be formed and then perform well-enough to merit inclusion on federal ballots.

As with any movement (from Know-Nothings to Mugwumps to Republican-Democrats) it begins with word-of-mouth, expands into reading material for careful reading and consideration...and right there the Internet is both a boon and a bane because without PRINT material (and BUDGETS to pay for it), the newcomer and outsider to all this political stuff just isn't going to bother.

Write down a site where he can FIND that material, or have a business card, then you're talking real word-of-mouth advertising. You're enticing converts. You're out there promoting your beliefs.

Ain't happening except through very tiny budgets of the few serious TP groups. They're relying more on the Web and the casual links they can drop in, wherever they go.

I offer a suggestion that you create a links-list of the TP groups representing state-level organization, and similar sites tracking local groups closest to a given reader's location. Dangle that carrot. Make them hungry for more about what you're selling.

You've explained quite eloquently as to why it's premature to think about starting a third party, the money is not quite there yet, and would assuredly destroy it's efforts of attempting the transition.
However, what the movement is doing is right on track with it's original implementation, taking over an existing party, one that has never adhered to the principles of the Constitution.

I believe we have a better shot at gutting a party full of libs, than taking them head on in a battle for money.
The Tea party has shown that it was viable during the 2010 mid terms, and will definitely repeat and surpass what it has accomplished.
I believe we are on the right path and see no reason to change mid stream.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 12, 2013, 09:21:35 AM
Did the actual transitions and creations of new parties always come from really crappy time like today ? 

It doesn't seem to have happened during the depression, so at least not then.

How do you suppose the country's first progressives got into office following the Great Depression?

Also the government's 'transition' into dictating laws to the States came about from the Civil War, which was a pretty "crappy" time involving unabashed federal government tyranny.

However if one is  going to constrain their examination of history and change  to political "party" names,  as if these parties involve a consistent ideology, then one is going to miss the big picture.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 09:52:34 AM
You've explained quite eloquently as to why it's premature to think about starting a third party, the money is not quite there yet, and would assuredly destroy it's efforts of attempting the transition.
However, what the movement is doing is right on track with it's original implementation, taking over an existing party, one that has never adhered to the principles of the Constitution.

I believe we have a better shot at gutting a party full of libs, than taking them head on in a battle for money.
The Tea party has shown that it was viable during the 2010 mid terms, and will definitely repeat and surpass what it has accomplished.
I believe we are on the right path and see no reason to change mid stream.

You a funny hypocritical guy, Mister "gradual change".

Be careful gutting those libs, as the lib gutted may be thyself!

As per my post here, by what terms are you able to imagine you're any better than those "libs"?  Your own terms?  Those are the same terms they're using - their own subjective judgment.  That's amusing.

Again "less government" is not a plan, it's a comparison.   And gradual restoration of the Constitution isn't an ideology, it's capitulation.

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:01:09 AM
You a funny hypocritical guy, Mister "gradual change".

Be careful gutting those libs, as the lib gutted may be thyself!

As per my post here, by what terms are you able to imagine you're any better than those "libs"?  Your own terms?  Those are the same terms they're using - their own subjective judgment.  That's amusing.

Again "less government" is not a plan, it's a comparison.   And gradual restoration of the Constitution isn't an ideology, it's capitulation.

Give it a rest, no one lives in your fantasy world but you, I'll fight to make change with the rest of the Conservatives in the real world.

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:01:09 AM
You a funny hypocritical guy, Mister "gradual change".

Be careful gutting those libs, as the lib gutted may be thyself!

As per my post here, by what terms are you able to imagine you're any better than those "libs"?  Your own terms?  Those are the same terms they're using - their own subjective judgment.  That's amusing.

Again "less government" is not a plan, it's a comparison.   And gradual restoration of the Constitution isn't an ideology, it's capitulation.

You know Trip, as Solar said we all want the same thing which is a return to the constitution.

Now like Kramarat have intervened many times and asked how your plan tries to do this, your answers have been vague at best.

Yes we all agree on the constitution, but when you consider participation in the political process as it is now to be capitulation, and as I understood you earlier the only other alternative to implement back the constitution is to become "cultural" revolutionaries, you have still not explained how this would work in practice except for your creation of a framework for the tea party in specific.

I think everyone agree with your views on the constitution, but the rest of your "reason" for not wanting nothing to do with political process and still somehow "win" the cultural war is extremely weak when compared to your lack of in depth explanation of the alternative.

Can't you see that it is really frustrating to hear someone call your way capitulation, when you have yourself offered no clear "pathway" to the restoration of the constitution?

I have learned much from reading your arguments on the constitution, arguments for the invalidity of current state of affairs and how it should be impossible to make legislation that is against the constitution, but you have still not made clear how we can enforce the constitution in practical terms, except of course the one reference to the tea party.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 10:34:01 AM
Give it a rest, no one lives in your fantasy world but you, I'll fight to make change with the rest of the Conservatives in the real world.

So it's now a fantasy world that individuals have unalienable rights under  our form of government?

And it is a fantasy that those unalienable rights that result in the sovereign states, and the limitations on government?

What your piss-poor grasp of the Constitution results in is a willingness to unravel rights and freedoms, by refusal to constrain the government to anything other than your own convenient subjective perspective.

Literally, this is how we got to this sad state of affairs now, where our very lives are not just at risk, but being methodically threatened.

What "REAL WORLD" do you imagine you're operating by? Seriously, I want to hear your standards explained in detail, so that we might know by what tremendous wisdom you're operating by.

My own position has 85 articles and 189,954 words in the Federalist, not to mention the Constitution and DOI.

I want to hear your methodology, and philosophy, and overall vision!   So come on, let's hear this enormous wisdom you're employing?
 

We're all Socialists now!

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:49:12 AM
So it's now a fantasy world that individuals have unalienable rights under  our form of government?

And it is a fantasy that those unalienable rights that result in the sovereign states, and the limitations on government?

What your piss-poor grasp of the Constitution results in is a willingness to unravel rights and freedoms, by refusal to constrain the government to anything other than your own convenient subjective perspective.

Literally, this is how we got to this sad state of affairs now, where our very lives are not just at risk, but being methodically threatened.

What "REAL WORLD" do you imagine you're operating by? Seriously, I want to hear your standards explained in detail, so that we might know by what tremendous wisdom you're operating by.

My own position has 85 articles and 189,954 words in the Federalist, not to mention the Constitution and DOI.

I want to hear your methodology, and philosophy, and overall vision!   So come on, let's hear this enormous wisdom you're employing?

I've explained it over and over, and yet you have given nothing as to how you plan to implement your Utopia.

Give us details, tell us how you, in one term will reverse 200 years of destruction.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
I've explained it over and over, and yet you have given nothing as to how you plan to implement your Utopia.

Give us details, tell us how you, in one term will reverse 200 years of destruction.

Apparently all we have to do is wave the constitution and all will be well....

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
I've explained it over and over, and yet you have given nothing as to how you plan to implement your Utopia.

Give us details, tell us how you, in one term will reverse 200 years of destruction.

It's his fantasy. All this talk and he'll change nothing because he doesn't understand human nature. Tens of millions vote who don't share any of his values. Take away their goodies and these millions will quickly throw you out of office. Make changes where they see benefits to themselves and you'll be allowed to continue. Trip has no power to implement his plan so these endless posts are pointless.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 11:09:05 AM
Apparently all we have to do is wave the constitution and all will be well....

That's how it works in Utopiaville, but in the real world, drastic change requires one of two things, a 100% willing populace, or a gun to the head by a dictator, neither of which will happen,

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
You know Trip, as Solar said we all want the same thing which is a return to the constitution.

Now like Kramarat have intervened many times and asked how your plan tries to do this, your answers have been vague at best.

Utter bullshit.  There is no way to get to Constitutional government by what Solar suggests. It will not ever happen, as I've shown.

And it's an insipid and even deliberately defeatist  question to ask how constitutional government is restored (not "my plan").  The founders themselves spoke on this more than 200 years ago, having presaged the conditions which we now find ourselves.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
Yes we all agree on the constitution, but when you consider participation in the political process as it is now to be capitulation, and as I understood you earlier the only other alternative to implement back the constitution is to become "cultural" revolutionaries, you have still not explained how this would work in practice except for your creation of a framework for the tea party in specific.

No we don't all agree on the Constitution, and saying we do shows you don't even grasp a half of hte argument.  Solar has repeatedly indicated that returning the Constitution involves the denial of blacks and women the vote, and other things, Yet none of this is even remotely true, and it is sadly, tragically, employing the same corrupt thought processes as the Leftists themselves, showing that he himself has bought into their arguments presented on the MSM as if they're valid!   

I never indicated "cultural revolutionaries" anywhere. I have referenced the three means, short of physical revolution, we have of demanding the application of the Constitution, only one of them was "civil disobedience", which I assume is your "cultural revolutionaries". 

However your "cultural revolutionaries" is itself an Orwellian corruption when the real revolution going on right now, before our eyes, is involving a socialist globalism overturning legitimate government.  What I argue is not any sort of "cultural revolution", much less involving culture at all!  You're using the Orwellian phrasings to corrupt and overturn  not only the very meaning of words themselves, but re-characterize our very condition, and in that, like Solar, you're brainwashing yourself by your own phrasing.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
I think everyone agree with your views on the constitution, but the rest of your "reason" for not wanting nothing to do with political process and still somehow "win" the cultural war is extremely weak when compared to your lack of in depth explanation of the alternative.

Again, calling this "culture" much less a "cultural war" is Orwellian word abuse, and inherently involves the de-validation of the Constitution as the Law of the Land.

The only "reason" applicable here is the fact that the Constitution is not subject to the political process! The Constitution is NOT on the table at all during elections!  Contrary to one very ignorant claim, elections are not about whether to "implement" the Constitution!  And yet again, in this phrasing, you are showing a compliance and subservience to this illegitimate form of government in your very phrasing, inherently validating it. 

By this repeated capitulation in your own phrasings, how in the hell can you even imagine that we "agree" on the Constitution?

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
Can't you see that it is really frustrating to hear someone call your way capitulation, when you have yourself offered no clear "pathway" to the restoration of the constitution?

It's amusing, but I did not yet read your  paragraph,  above, when I wrote "capitulation" in my preceding paragraph.

Seriously, I have to wrap my head in duct tape to keep it from exploding even hearing you say I need to offer a "clear pathway",  as if it had never been done before. 

Why don't you go read the Federalist papers. I am quite certain you've never done so.  I bet your eyes started bleeding before you made it through even one of them. Mine sure did.  I will tell you though, that reading them does get a lot easier once you become familiar with their phrasing and argument structure.  No, I've no desire to repeat what has already been done by others far more erudite than I.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
I have learned much from reading your arguments on the constitution, arguments for the invalidity of current state of affairs and how it should be impossible to make legislation that is against the constitution, but you have still not made clear how we can enforce the constitution in practical terms, except of course the one reference to the tea party.

The founders themselves made it clear,  not only what was necessary from us to maintain Constitution, but how we should restore it, "in practical terms".     

You should recognize that "practicality", the actual application in real terms, is not synonymous with "convenience."  That's what Paine was actually referring to by the "Summer Solder" and "Sunshine Patriot".

There's an over-abundance of Sunshine  Patriots.

Germans had the opportunity,  for a period, to stop their country from going into the darkness of National Socialism, and years of brutal government terrorism of its own citizens. and millions dead.  A Pastor,  Martin Niemoller,  actually wrote a poem about it.

• "First they came for the communists,
  and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist... " 

However those Germans actually acting on that opportunity was inconvenient.   And when it was more than convenient, it was far too late.   Solar's argument (and others) is actually about convenience, and not actually about practical terms at all.

We're repeating history, and Americans are too ignorant of that history, even too ignorant of their own country's Constitution, to stop it.   

But by all means, let's do it "gradually" because going over the cliff gradually is going to make so much difference.   But welcome to RINO thought.