What do you all think of the Tea Party?
As far as I can see, the liberals in the Democrat Party, and the spineless progressives in the Republican Party are leading this country down the economic road to oblivion. That being said, I am open to a new party that more closely matches my philosophy and desires, and will promote policies that will serve society rather than enslave it.
While I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, I sympathize with their intent, at least with what I perceive as their intent: that being smaller, less intrusive government, and a return to the founder's original intentions in this regard. However, my understanding is that this movement is just grass roots, with no real central national platform, and certainly with no vetting process for the candidates that it backs.
Can this movement be successful without organizing at the national level?
Is this movement viable? Will it become, like the GOP did just prior to the Civil War, the dominant party of the country?
Just interested in opinions...
While I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, I sympathize with their intent, at least with what I perceive as their intent: that being smaller, less intrusive government, and a return to the founder's original intentions in this regard. However, my understanding is that this movement is just grass roots, with no real central national platform, and certainly with no vetting process for the candidates that it backs.
Can this movement be successful without organizing at the national level?
Is this movement viable? Will it become, like the GOP did just prior to the Civil War, the dominant party of the country?
Just interested in opinions...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
Sadly, this is a very BAD assumption. The "average" IQ is 100. SAT scores have declined every year for 40 years and a recently published study surmises a 14 point drop in IQ among western nations in the past century. That means there are a LOT of stupid people out there.
Beyond that, the majority of voters (women) are economically stupid. Studies indicate women are 4 times less likely than men to have a good understanding of economics. The Cliffs Notes version is this: Women are more risk averse than men, tend to vote for social welfare programs to "feel" more secure, happily trade freedom for the illusion of security, spend all future revenues on the "buy now, pay... never" plan and are driving our Country into bankruptcy. Correction: We're already there.
You're not going to convince most women to give up their goodies, so that's a lost cause. Among the morons who vote are those who (male or female) will not give up their goodies either.
So bottom line is this: While it never hurts for people to understand what is happening and why, the majority of people don't want to hear it, won't listen to it, and will continue to vote to bleed the working class dry until there is nothing left... hence the premise for "Atlas Shrugged".
So gather the workers into the Gulch, let the world burn down around you. Repel those who show up late having first destroyed America then claimed victimhood. Let them die.
When the smoke clears, rebuild. And when you do, don't repeat the mistake of the 19th Amendment... which is at the root of all our troubles.
For example: You decry the "isolationist" nature of the Libertarians and cheer "muscular defense"... from what? Who is attacking America (besides our own police forces)? Do you cheer the killing of hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis? Is that the "aggressive offense" you approve? The libertarians would say, "Don't go kill a bunch of people for no reason." I suppose you'd say, "It's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of people who never did anything to us, so long as we get to kill some who might have had bad thoughts about us." (Note: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.)
Look at the horrible mess that is Afghanistan and Iraq. More Americans killed than in the 9/11 attacks. TRILLIONS of dollars wasted. MILLIONS of new enemies made. Wouldn't you want to kill the people who have occupied your country and bombed you indiscriminately for years? All for what? What good has come of ANY of it?
Yes, we got bin Laden. We could have done that without the invasions, the crippling of our economy, the thousands of dead Americans or the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
So, defense, yes. I'm sure Libertarians are pretty uniformly in favor of strong DEFENSE. But mass homicide to pursue a jingoistic imperialistic agenda? You have to be a Democrat, Republican, psychopath or utter moron to buy that crap.
Maybe carolyn62 will come back and straighten this out?
What are you doing up so late? I have nowhere to go tomorrow, and am a night owl by nature. I'll be watching movies until dawn...African Queen is in the player!
I am a registered Republican, and have been for quite some time. When I owned my company, I donated freely to their cause.
But I have never received anything like a "renewal" request form, unless you are really talking about fund raising. My party affiliation has never been in question, and I am sure that I would have to personally make this change in my state, since primaries are only open to registered party voters.
Just curious....
My response. 1) Israel does what it has to do to survive. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since all hell is breaking loose around them, for instance, Syria, Egypt. 2) If the Tea Party has pulled the GOP is so right-of-center, how come the last two GOP presidential nominees were McCain, who's hardly a favorite of conservatives, and Romney, who was as moderate as you can get? 3) There are exceptions, but the nature of conservatism is NOT to tell people what to do. Just look at Bloomberg, Michelle Obama are their campaigns to tell us what to eat and drink, Ever see a conservative try that? 4) Milktoast Romney start a war? Seriously? And 4) "You're full of sh*t."
One to balance the budget and two to pay off the debt.
A requirement would be however to stop paying people to do nothing.
Or over paying people to do little (top level workers)
Yes, we've gone beyond the point of no return IMO but reading Atlas Shrugged left me with a sense of peace knowing this. Full of angst before reading but now I know exactly where we're headed. Anyone else at peace?
I saw the question why does God get the benefit for good but not the evil in the world. An excellent question. Check your premises, evil by who's definition. I have had the good fortune of slightly expieriencing the after life. There is a God and everything we think of as evil,tragic is nothing but a cog in in his workings. "The big picture" I've heard it called and I wonder if whoever coined that term knew just how right they actually were. As a member of mankind I feel remorse for innocent loss of life, its only natural. After my expierience that remorse is tempered by the fact that "The Big Picture" is at work. So in answer, Yes, god gets the blame for the bad things too. there could be a devil at work, don't know myself, have'nt met him,,,,,yet anyways.
Two things I know, seriously folks, On the day you die you will understand fully EVERYTHING that has happened in history and why. Your concious will never have a question ever again. You will smile at all of it and the sense of peace you feel is not within a mortals grasp of recognition. I do not think the human mind in the condition we know it could handle it. JMO
As for the gold and silver hoarding. I have a question I deem valid. When society crumbles as I believe it eventually will will gold and silver still be of some value? personally I think not but I'm of an open mind on the subject.
I think food, water,heat and mostly defense are the only things worth having. Shiny metal will be a forgotten thing of the past within a month, maybe less.
Contrary to Ayn Rand's idealized vision, most humans do, in fact, still operate on that unthinking animal level. Actually, even animals have a surprising capacity for shrewdness and deception, a survival tool for every creature, from tiniest insect or microorganism to the largest mammal.
We have not yet reached the evolutionary step of abandoning the limbic system and working entirely only out of our frontal lobes. The welfare freeloaders are not intentionally malevolent; they are behaving as the culture taught them. And if they can plant guilt and pity in the hearts of the self-sufficient towards the "less fortunate", and legislate it by government force, are they not the top of the food chain; are they not an exemplar of efficacy for survival?
By manipulating the human tendency (instinct, drive, built-in directive) to care for one's own and one's kin's survival, they have engineered, by pure opportunism, a society where the more able are enslaved to the less able--another case of consent of the victim. Such systems and practices become entrenched and grow like a cancer. And our system has escalated to the breaking point.
How to turn this around ethically, morally, and non-violently when dole recipients will shriek against being deprived of their accustomed share? Ayn Rand's restatement of the Golden Rule would be a good place to start: neither sacrificing oneself for others nor sacrificing others for oneself. We must assert this moral principle unremittingly against the entitlement mentality--those who have taken for granted, without any thought of the ethical implications, that they will be given, and it never occurs to them to ask from whom it is taken.
Those who might have the slightest compunction or twinge of conscience about this economic cannibalism rationalize the taking/giving by santimoniously claiming that the rich got rich on the poor people's back and ought to "give back". "Social justice" is trumpeted until enough people actually believe that expropriation of those who have more is moral and should be a legal requirement. And who feeds this poisonous idea to the masses? Those who want power over them. With the hunter-gatherer's disregard for private property and individual achievement, they consider everyone fair game for rape and pillage. Only these days it's called a more polite "redistribution".
Without property rights there are no other rights, and no freedoms. That's how some people become more equal than others. Everyone wants to get the most for the least effort. Only, if others do it it's greed. If you do it, it's your right as a matter of social justice. We have our work cut out for us, people, to re-educate this culture. There is no physical Galt's Gulch. This forum is as good as it gets.
I'd be happy to see this discussion taken to another topic. How does that work?
Bring the press and stand in the shadows and the the show commence for the whole world to see what complete and utter nonsense issues forth from ignorant, Incompetent and lazy fools.
Just stand to the side and let the world see the type of people the liberal left support.
As to your question, my initial opinion is that I think not. Evolving to a purpose beyond mere survival would entail that this need be guaranteed, something that I believe is impossible with the state of our society and technology at this time. Perhaps in the future, should we develop a machine that produces food on demand, like in Star Trek, then maybe, but even then we would be a slave to the technology. I believe that survival will always be a primary need, usually overwhelming all other considerations.
But even pursuing this line of thought if deviating from my main point, that being that people are programed from birth to obtain their needs via some method. The problem with our society today is that too many of our young have been programmed to be dependents. Self reliance, and self assurance are all too often not being taught any longer. We need to find a way to train people in this skills, a task that will now be especially hard given that too many people are destructive parasites out of habit now.
Write me if you are open to ideas or have ideas to pass on. The more WE do that the better it will be for all of us Galtists.
Load more comments...