This is awesome
-
That is a good answer, I must say... actually it is one of the reasons that I gravitate towards libertarianism. However I what bothers me about the Tea Party movement is the fact that if it is not based on well thought out principles, it can easily degenerate into only being those vague concepts, such as "hope" and "change", or worse, into the very things the movement is fighting against, for example government intrusion and control (whether it is under the guise of "promoting family values", or of "increasing our military", or "taking care of the immigration problem", etc). Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism. I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
J. Dunlap wrote:
Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism. I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
J. Dunlap wrote:
Intuition and reaction to the problems in governments is a good starting point and is important for motivating political change, but must be grounded in a coherent political philosophy.
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism.
Agreed. There are a lot of nutters putting themselves under the banner of the tea party, and I know they don't represent what the tea party movement is meant to be.
Oakman wrote:
I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
The tea party philosophy follows libertarian principles to a fair extent - for example, small government - but then in other areas it still leans strongly toward big government. One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II. That issue is an example of where they deviate strongly from the principles our country was founded on.
Oakman wrote:
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
I see your point - however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time, and put a huge amount of thought into the foundation of our country. Without them, our new nation would have ended up like those of so many other revolutions we've seen, rather than being a beacon for other countries to follow.
-
Oakman wrote:
It worries me, too. I see various agenda-groups attempting to co-opt a genuine grass-roots old fashioned (small "L") libertarian demand for a return to a Constitutional Federal Republic into their particular brand of social conservatism.
Agreed. There are a lot of nutters putting themselves under the banner of the tea party, and I know they don't represent what the tea party movement is meant to be.
Oakman wrote:
I think the next battle will be between the libertarian-oriented Tea Party and the Tax and Spend (but less) old guard Republicans.
The tea party philosophy follows libertarian principles to a fair extent - for example, small government - but then in other areas it still leans strongly toward big government. One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II. That issue is an example of where they deviate strongly from the principles our country was founded on.
Oakman wrote:
However, I really question whether the average joe dumping tea into Boston Harbor in 1775 had a coherent political philosophy beyond a desire to fight against government control expressed as "Kick the fracking lobstercoats out of town."
I see your point - however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time, and put a huge amount of thought into the foundation of our country. Without them, our new nation would have ended up like those of so many other revolutions we've seen, rather than being a beacon for other countries to follow.
J. Dunlap wrote:
One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II.
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War. However, your point is well-made. We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
J. Dunlap wrote:
however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time,
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words. Nonetheless, I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
One example is increased military spending in a country that has the largest military in the world, much bigger than it has ever been other than World War II.
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War. However, your point is well-made. We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
J. Dunlap wrote:
however the founding fathers themselves were perhaps the most insightful people of their time,
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words. Nonetheless, I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War.
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then, and also the cost of the Vietnam war was less than that of the Iraq war alone, even in inflation-adjusted terms. See here[^] here[^], here[^], here[^], etc.
Oakman wrote:
We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
Agreed. I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum and that type of thing, not as something that we have military obligations to.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words.
Well they were political philosophers, policy makers, and founders, not generals and war strategists. Both were important.
Oakman wrote:
I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
Definitely.
-
Oakman wrote:
Actually we were almost three times the same size as we are now at the time of the Vietnam War.
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then, and also the cost of the Vietnam war was less than that of the Iraq war alone, even in inflation-adjusted terms. See here[^] here[^], here[^], here[^], etc.
Oakman wrote:
We should get the hell out of Asia, Europe and Oceania and let them figure out for themselves who is the big frog in their puddles. The amount we'd save - even if we kept the military the same size but all based between Hawaii and Bermuda - if we pulled out of NATO and the other agreements to police parts of the world of no interest to us, would be enormous. And, if we are no longer interested in being the global beat cop, lets dump the UN, too.
Agreed. I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum and that type of thing, not as something that we have military obligations to.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it can be argued that the Jeffersons and Madisons never served in a wartime unit, and limited their participation in the revolution to hot air and fine words.
Well they were political philosophers, policy makers, and founders, not generals and war strategists. Both were important.
Oakman wrote:
I agree that without them the revolution could have ended up like France's in the hands of a dictator and I suggest there is no-one presently in the forefront of any part of the U.S. political debate that could hold a candle to the political philosophers of the American revolution.
Definitely.
J. Dunlap wrote:
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then
We needed to get on the same wavelength. I was thinking manpower. My bad for not reading more carefully. :-O Part of the difference is the costs associated with going to an all volunteer force, something I basically approve of. But since the force is too damn small to fight two wars, we are also hiring contractors to do a lot of military jobs, and mercenary organizations don't come cheap. Much of the difference in the costs of the war, I think, have to do with us really not spending all that much money trying to rebuild South Vietnam. In Vietnam the army did what the army does best, make big things into little things and little things into dust. The North simply did not have the weapons to reply in kind. In Iraq the armed forces were suddenly saddled with a job they were ill prepared for. (In WWII, the army began planning for the occupation of Germany in 1943) and ultimately began to throw money at the problems in hopes they would go away.
J. Dunlap wrote:
I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
It is definitely less in terms of percentage of GDP, but in terms of actual spending, we have a higher (inflation-adjusted) military budget than we did back then
We needed to get on the same wavelength. I was thinking manpower. My bad for not reading more carefully. :-O Part of the difference is the costs associated with going to an all volunteer force, something I basically approve of. But since the force is too damn small to fight two wars, we are also hiring contractors to do a lot of military jobs, and mercenary organizations don't come cheap. Much of the difference in the costs of the war, I think, have to do with us really not spending all that much money trying to rebuild South Vietnam. In Vietnam the army did what the army does best, make big things into little things and little things into dust. The North simply did not have the weapons to reply in kind. In Iraq the armed forces were suddenly saddled with a job they were ill prepared for. (In WWII, the army began planning for the occupation of Germany in 1943) and ultimately began to throw money at the problems in hopes they would go away.
J. Dunlap wrote:
I do see a use for the UN but only as a diplomatic forum
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Good points on the war stuff... On the cost end of things, it's yet another reason why I think we shouldn't have gotten into the wars to begin with.
Oakman wrote:
and mercenary organizations don't come cheap
Nor do they do anything better than a shoddy job most of the time. They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
Oakman wrote:
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
Sounds good to me! :-D
-
Christian Graus wrote:
yes, I believe there were some posts on that page of people who had that issue when they got the shirts. The issue is, how do you caricature a movement that is already a caricature of reality ?
The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you?
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Good points on the war stuff... On the cost end of things, it's yet another reason why I think we shouldn't have gotten into the wars to begin with.
Oakman wrote:
and mercenary organizations don't come cheap
Nor do they do anything better than a shoddy job most of the time. They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
Oakman wrote:
OK, then lets tell it to move to Belgium and let the diplomats yammer at each other over there. Meanwhile we can sell off the prime real estate they occupy right now and pay down a bit of the deficit, while eliminating a great deal of New York's parking problems as there won't be diplomatic licenses plates triple parking wherever they please.
Sounds good to me! :-D
J. Dunlap wrote:
They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
government accountability? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you?
I see you're still an arsehole? Who would have thought...
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The way I read the rules, "I hate America" posts belong in the back room. Or don't they apply to you?
I see you're still an arsehole? Who would have thought...
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
They have the govt's endless money and none of the accountability.
government accountability? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I see you're still an a***hole?
I've only started posting and I've figured that out. He wears it on his sleeve.
Majerus wrote:
I've only started posting and I've figured that out.
then you're suffering from dementia and unwilling to honestly debate.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Majerus wrote:
I've only started posting and I've figured that out.
then you're suffering from dementia and unwilling to honestly debate.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
The biggest problem with the Tea Party, is the fact that its goals and philosophy are not well thought out - they are mostly a reactionary group as opposed to a political school of thought. Even their official website shows that to be true. For example, their Core Beliefs section (non-bold text mine): Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. Well, duh! Currently our laws do indeed say that it is a misdemeanor to be here in the country without having a green card or visa. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the complexity of the actual issues of what our immigration policy should be. Stronger Military Is Essential. Stronger how? What determines this need and how do we know when it is strong enough? Special Interests Eliminated. Good point maybe, but care to define it better? National Budget Must Be Balanced. Every politician in congress will agree with this, more or less. The question is, how should it be balanced? Deficit Spending Will End. Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. Intrusive Government Stopped.
All noble goals but I have yet to see truly well thought out philosophies from them on how to do this best (at least not that differ from other parties). Government Must Be Downsized. Agreed, but a significant portion of our spending is on military. How much else are we likely to have to cut in order to downsize if we're increasing military spending from its current levels? Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. English As Core Language Is Required.
What is the philosophy behind these? Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. What are these? How do we "encourage" these within a government without infringing on people's rights? After all a core value is supposedly "Intrusive Government Stopped". Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance Define this...? Libertarianism addresses the issues of big government, personal liberties, etc, but it addresses the issues with well-defined philosophy and political thought.J. Dunlap wrote:
Even their official website shows that to be true. For example, their Core Beliefs section (non-bold text mine):
there is no official TEA Party site.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I have yet to see any honest debate from him. One post and you are matching him in the asshole department. If you want to debate, let's. Otherwise I'm not interested.
Majerus wrote:
Otherwise I'm not interested
nor am I, not after visiting the side show.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Majerus wrote:
Otherwise I'm not interested
nor am I, not after visiting the side show.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. As American as: hot dogs, apple pie and Sarah Palin God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
45% is still a minority of Americans
Yes? Your point is what? That 45% is not a plurality? That the 35% who oppose the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party are the only ones who count?
Keith Barrow wrote:
polls can be easily skewed
Absolutely, but there are numerous polls showing the results I cited and none showing the reverse.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
That the 35% who oppose the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party are the only ones who count?
If it was just about actual fiscal responsibility, I seriously doubt much of anyone would have a problem with it, but given the tacked on desire to revert society to the 1950s in all cases except the tax rate it's pretty easy to find reasons to discount them. I say this as someone who had to explain to a lot of the people who were involved in the initial outbreak of the movement that calling themselves tea baggers was a really, really bad idea. I've watched the fringe elements who have attempted to shape what could have been a competent movement(possibly, though anyone who attempts to appeal to a historic event in a completely inaccurate context is on a bad start) since they got a hold of it. If they're the average American I'll be on trial for atheism, satan worship and defamation of their lord and savior Ronald Regan within the decade. But like I said, it'd be really hard to find a reason not to accept fiscal responsibility, what is difficult is explaining to people that ending all taxes and freezing the government is not responsible, it's the exact opposite. Being responsible is dealing with the messes that have been made rather than playing the blame game and demanding all incumbents be ejected as if that is going to be a magical solution.
-
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
Oakman wrote:
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken but other than that you;re right. My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
-
Oakman wrote:
Who would have thought you and Christian would be the two who decided that the rules of this forum didn't apply to them? Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and you two trolls just have to create a confrontation. But then again, that is why I created SB1.
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken but other than that you;re right. My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
Josh Gray wrote:
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken
"The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas. . ."
Josh Gray wrote:
My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
Good on you, mate. Accepted.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I donlt know which rule you think I've broken
"The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas. . ."
Josh Gray wrote:
My comment was uncalled for and I appologise.
Good on you, mate. Accepted.
The man who insists that he will walk the middle of the road has his path determined for him by those who define the ditches, and never then takes a step of his own real choosing.