[quote]Dustin wrote:
I’m not trying be a douche, but can some of the Tea Partiers explain this to me?[/quote]
The National Debt Road Trip - YouTube this explains most of it… and as an aside the debt car increased in speed to more then double what was reported in this video… so ya, its a big part of it… saying he only continued trends from bush is just plain WRONG…
Also regarding the whole “Where was the Tea Party under Bush?”:
My recollection is that the widespread unrest about gov’t spending really took fire after TARP occurred. Anybody else recall the “They caused this mess and now we’re spending $1 trillion to bail them out?!!” sentiment? It wasn’t like it was hard to miss during that time.
TARP was the stick that stirred the hornet’s nest. And as any Obama supporter will gladly tell you, TARP happened while Bush was still in office.
The Tea Party movement has grown and formalized since Obama took office, but only those with a 15-minute memory (or New Zealanders) think it began only after Obama moved in.
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I’m not trying be a douche, but can some of the Tea Partiers explain this to me?[/quote]
The National Debt Road Trip - YouTube this explains most of it… and as an aside the debt car increased in speed to more then double what was reported in this video… so ya, its a big part of it… saying he only continued trends from bush is just plain WRONG…
[/quote]
That’s good - and I agree completely. Thanks!
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Also regarding the whole “Where was the Tea Party under Bush?”:
My recollection is that the widespread unrest about gov’t spending really took fire after TARP occurred. Anybody else recall the “They caused this mess and now we’re spending $1 trillion to bail them out?!!” sentiment? It wasn’t like it was hard to miss during that time.
TARP was the stick that stirred the hornet’s nest. And as any Obama supporter will gladly tell you, TARP happened while Bush was still in office.
The Tea Party movement has grown and formalized since Obama took office, but only those with a 15-minute memory (or New Zealanders) think it began only after Obama moved in. [/quote]
Personally, I think there’s another factor at work.
It’s not just the acceleration in spending; it’s also the veering towards collectivist thinking and policies. It’s the abrogation of the rule of law far and above what Bush did. It’s that Obama appears to want to change America into a reflection of how he thinks it should be and look. There are many different definitions of fascist of course - but to me, that is one of them.
Moreover, while I had many problems with Bush, I do believe that he was basically a patriot who loved this country. I’m sorry and afraid that I cannot say that about Obama.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Also regarding the whole “Where was the Tea Party under Bush?”:
My recollection is that the widespread unrest about gov’t spending really took fire after TARP occurred. Anybody else recall the “They caused this mess and now we’re spending $1 trillion to bail them out?!!” sentiment? It wasn’t like it was hard to miss during that time.
TARP was the stick that stirred the hornet’s nest. And as any Obama supporter will gladly tell you, TARP happened while Bush was still in office.
The Tea Party movement has grown and formalized since Obama took office, but only those with a 15-minute memory (or New Zealanders) think it began only after Obama moved in. [/quote]
No, you bring up solid points and I agree. But wouldn’t you agree that the Tea Party became “fashionable” after Obama was elected?
I’m speaking from my own experiences and observations, but it is odd that people who previously (pre-Obama administration) never considered themselves libertarians now proudly proclaim themselves as card carrying members.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, you bring up solid points and I agree. But wouldn’t you agree that the Tea Party became “fashionable” after Obama was elected?
I’m speaking from my own experiences and observations, but it is odd that people who previously (pre-Obama administration) never considered themselves libertarians now proudly proclaim themselves as card carrying members.[/quote]
The reason is, IMO, Bush was more “stealthy” with his big government plans, whereas Obama promotes massive healthcare overhaul bills. Obama is just more blatant about it, so it’s more easy for the common folk to recognize.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I’m speaking from my own experiences and observations, but it is odd that people who previously (pre-Obama administration) never considered themselves libertarians now proudly proclaim themselves as card carrying members.[/quote]
Because before the tea party the libertarian idea was not mainstream enough to accomplish anything and as such most of us classified ourselves as fiscal conservatives. I know I did, I voted republican as a lesser of two evil votes since I dont like republicans spending and religious slant, but atleast they try to give tax breaks…
I will proudly be there. I am tired of where were you during bush. I spent the last 3 yrs of bush saying something was wrong. How bout this, Where are all the anti war leftist now. Where are all the people saying the gov should not tap our phones. The left are the real hipocrites,most of them any way, as some are just mis informed. The left were saying the same stuff under bush as we are now. To them I say I AM HERE NOW, WHERE IN THE HELL ARE YOU? That is a quote from Beck. As far as his bank account, hell I help grow it. I buy all his books when they come out. I hope he gets as rich as soros, so then maybe he can pull the strings of the white house.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’ll be there!
I would recommend everyone who holds the belief that our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed to be there as well.
We need to display our disgust with a bloated and runaway bureacratic socialist government . . .[/quote]
Irish, I’m so glad you’ll be there.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
I will proudly be there. I am tired of where were you during bush. I spent the last 3 yrs of bush saying something was wrong. How bout this, Where are all the anti war leftist now. Where are all the people saying the gov should not tap our phones. The left are the real hipocrites,most of them any way, as some are just mis informed. The left were saying the same stuff under bush as we are now. To them I say I AM HERE NOW, WHERE IN THE HELL ARE YOU? That is a quote from Beck. As far as his bank account, hell I help grow it. I buy all his books when they come out. I hope he gets as rich as soros, so then maybe he can pull the strings of the white house. [/quote]
Yup! Awesome.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
No, you bring up solid points and I agree. But wouldn’t you agree that the Tea Party became “fashionable” after Obama was elected?
I’m speaking from my own experiences and observations, but it is odd that people who previously (pre-Obama administration) never considered themselves libertarians now proudly proclaim themselves as card carrying members.[/quote]
Of course they’ve become more popular since Obama was elected. Their shared purpose is smaller government, so why is it surprising to see that Obama, of all people, is driving people to join the Tea Parties?
I’m sure there’d suddenly be a lot more avowed environmentalists in an area that just saw a strip mining operation move in too.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I’m sure there’d suddenly be a lot more avowed environmentalists in an area that just saw a strip mining operation move in too. [/quote]
Actually, now adays I think people would just be happy they have a chance at a job…
I worked in a mine for 6months as a materials failure analysis engineer (internship). Everyone bashes them but honestly they are ultra efficient and do damn near no long term damage to the environment. Especially if you compare it to foriegn mining… I wont even go there…
Dustin, You take this “libertarian Doorman” gig a little too far sometimes. I voted for Bush both times and during his second term I started hearing things that I previously didn’t hear. You know I have been pretty active on this very forum since I joined up in 2003.
So for 4 - 5 years I was a very hardline republican, and to be honest, 9/11 is what really got me paying attention to politics. Before that, I didn’t even vote or give a shit, I thought the news was for boring old people.
I will venture that YOU were maybe the lone libertarian voice that I can ever remember hearing on this site, which was my main hub of political activity. And to be honest, your approach then was similar to now, short, elitist and almost “I am better than you all because I am a libertarian and therefore I am right” so for the most part I never even took anything you had to say seriously, even though now I agree with nearly all of your views.
For me it was finally grasping multiple things, like economics, markets, foreign policy. And also getting an idea that “The Government” may not always be looking out for the little guy, (TARP, Bailouts, etc) so it was a slow evolution and relization, but it doesn’t make you any better than I am. In fact people Like John are better for the libertarian movement because he is constantly sharing information in a very non-confrontational way.
Irish calls this place the Republican blowjob barn, but the old republicans are in ther minority now. Or at least thier numbers are matched by people who would probably choose libertarian to describe thier views.
It’s definately still a heavily conservative place, but when people are slowly coming over to your side, you don’t stop them and insult them by telling them they are just wanna be Libertarians. Sorry, this is my only complaint I have against you, Like I said I pretty much agree with everything else you say and think you are an overall nice guy and everything.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Dustin, You take this “libertarian Doorman” gig a little too far sometimes. I voted for Bush both times and during his second term I started hearing things that I previously didn’t hear. You know I have been pretty active on this very forum since I joined up in 2003.
So for 4 - 5 years I was a very hardline republican, and to be honest, 9/11 is what really got me paying attention to politics. Before that, I didn’t even vote or give a shit, I thought the news was for boring old people.
I will venture that YOU were maybe the lone libertarian voice that I can ever remember hearing on this site, which was my main hub of political activity. And to be honest, your approach then was similar to now, short, elitist and almost “I am better than you all because I am a libertarian and therefore I am right” so for the most part I never even took anything you had to say seriously, even though now I agree with nearly all of your views.
For me it was finally grasping multiple things, like economics, markets, foreign policy. And also getting an idea that “The Government” may not always be looking out for the little guy, (TARP, Bailouts, etc) so it was a slow evolution and relization, but it doesn’t make you any better than I am. In fact people Like John are better for the libertarian movement because he is constantly sharing information in a very non-confrontational way.
Irish calls this place the Republican blowjob barn, but the old republicans are in ther minority now. Or at least thier numbers are matched by people who would probably choose libertarian to describe thier views.
It’s definately still a heavily conservative place, but when people are slowly coming over to your side, you don’t stop them and insult them by telling them they are just wanna be Libertarians. Sorry, this is my only complaint I have against you, Like I said I pretty much agree with everything else you say and think you are an overall nice guy and everything.
V[/quote]
My initial posts were more or less observations. I even asked the Tea Partiers to explain the rise in popularity of their group. No douchy-ness intended. Perhaps my tact wasn’t appropriate, but I was merely trying to point out that there hasn’t been a major change in policies since Obama has been elected. As someone above pointed out, the difference is Obama has been more open about his intentions than Bush was, which I tend to agree with.
So yes, if you detect a hint of skepticism on my part (and even frustration), it’s because the movement (Tea Party) appears to be a knee jerk reaction to a President that in many instances has simply continued the previous administration’s policies. I sure hope I’m wrong though and the movement continues to grow (The Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party), to the point that it can effect a Presidential election.
So again, no insults were ever intended (I have previously commented in this forum on how much I dig John’s posts).
p.s. I dig you too Vegita
XOXO
Dustin,
Well, I don’t know - I’ve been fairly active in the Tea Party since the beginning here in Boston, and I don’t see it as a “libertarian” thing at all. I think that misunderstands the movement. Also, you keep repeating that Obama is simply a continuation of Bush. Whatever you’re smoking, may I have some? LOL! Seriously, I think you’re taking that shtick a bit too far. Donchya think?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Dustin,
Well, I don’t know - I’ve been fairly active in the Tea Party since the beginning here in Boston, and I don’t see it as a “libertarian” thing at all. I think that misunderstands the movement. Also, you keep repeating that Obama is simply a continuation of Bush. Whatever you’re smoking, may I have some? LOL! Seriously, I think you’re taking that shtick a bit too far. Donchya think? [/quote]
Not to go too far off the topic, but how are that different?
Bush spent like a drunken sailor and Obama picked up where he left off.
Obama has sent 40,000 more troops to A-Stan, continuing Bush policies (Obama ran his election of bringing the boys home).
Bailouts started under Bush and were continued by Obama.
The only possible exception is Obama’s universal health care reform bill.
Are they exactly the same, no, but on some of the bigger issues I just don’t see a major difference.
I think the big difference, for me atleast between bush and Obama is simple and someone already said it. Bush was misguided but at the end of the day, loved this country and what we stand for, Obama does not love this country and what it stands for.
Obama has gone way beyond what bush did in terms of spending and entitlement programs to the point that people are not even sure what / where this country is going any more… Thats why the tea party exists (or atleast why I joined). I want the country to do a 180 and go back a good bit on the entitlements and return to a faith in family, bussiness and limited government…
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Obama has sent 40,000 more troops to A-Stan, continuing Bush policies (Obama ran his election of bringing the boys home).
[/quote]
This is one thing I never really understood. Obama’s campaign quite explicitly about “bringing the boys home” FROM IRAQ. He always then talked about Afghanistan as the necessary war. Did people just stick their fingers in their ears at that point of his speeches?
Sorry to nit-pick. From a libertarian perspective, I can understand why you made the rest of the post.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Dustin,
Well, I don’t know - I’ve been fairly active in the Tea Party since the beginning here in Boston, and I don’t see it as a “libertarian” thing at all. I think that misunderstands the movement. Also, you keep repeating that Obama is simply a continuation of Bush. Whatever you’re smoking, may I have some? LOL! Seriously, I think you’re taking that shtick a bit too far. Donchya think? [/quote]
Not to go too far off the topic, but how are that different?
Bush spent like a drunken sailor and Obama picked up where he left off.[/quote]
No he didn’t - Obama accelerated that spending to a degree that is - by far and away - unprecedented the history of the Republic.
[quote]Obama has sent 40,000 more troops to A-Stan, continuing Bush policies (Obama ran his election of bringing the boys home).
Bailouts started under Bush and were continued by Obama. [/quote]
Those bailouts first of all were during the last few months of Bush’s presidency? I’m sure most of the people who show up at the Tea Parties were flabbergasted. So?
And, the transition team designed and implemented much of it.
That is HUUGE. And the Financial Bill. And the takeover of most of our auto industry. And so on and so on.
Obama is fundamentally reorienting our Republic - to degrees that Bush didn’t come close; and in ways that Bush never dreamed of.
So far the only “sameness” is the sending of troops. Otherwise, you haven’t made a particularly strong case. I’m willing to listen though.
Edit: one other thing - as I have said before, Bush - for all his faults, and there were many - was at least a patriot. I cannot say the same about Obama. In my opinion, Obama has all but declared war on the American Republic.
Obama is fundamentally reorienting our Republic end quote
That is what he said he would do, but no one listened. All they heard was hope, change, and “free stuff”