edweaver: Absolutely concurred.
All or nothing. It's time to kick ass and take names.

Esceptico: Thank you for the info... and the "bonehead" comment!

O.A.- Well put.

Excuse me, I resemble that remark.

The movement that is "astroturf" is Obama's. His side even hired paid demonstrators. We've never done that.

I call you out as a Democrat in sheep's clothing.

Hello KCLiberty,
That is a rather broad brush. Have you any evidence of this? I am not a TEA Party member, but I have friends that are in a local chapter. Their interest was not orchestrated... it was organic... born out of frustration. The only common denominator among them is in the name... Taxed Enough Already. Are you making a distinction with this term "Tea-0-Con" which I am unfamiliar with? What exactly is a "Tea-o-Con" by your definition?

I'm sure there are some in every crowd, but to collectively judge them in such a fashion seems rather subjective. Perhaps you have interactions with people in upper echelons while I have only interacted with grass roots locals.

Respectfully,
O.A.

This convo is interesting. I think XT is calling out pragmatism in your approach, Zero. And Zero is calling out realism. But morality has its root in reality. What is the moral response to an election where the only "idealistic" "moral" claims come from a socialist? If Ron Paul were running, I believe this conversation would hold a much different tone. Why? Paul Ryan argues from a traditional perspective, appealing to "common sense" conservatives. Ron Paul would explain the reasons America has to do what it must, but due to his lack of aesthetics (take it as you will), he failed among all but the "underground" libertarians.

What we have is another establishment RINO in a position to put down opposition to the GOP/DNC Ogenda. This will be most obvious when no-brainier, pro-America conservative bills are tossed aside to align policy with the POsTUS Ogenda. Ryan or Bohener = ssdd.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

You do realize the "Tea Party" was a propaganda creation by the RNC/DNC cabal? It was a purely media-created astroturf movement. Anyone who claims to be a Tea-o-Con cannot be trusted.

That depends how you define "great". Look at Peru, or Iceland (who jailed banksters and are much more free than we are). In terms of individual liberty, the US is horrible. I have to work with typical sheeple who are gullible to propaganda and vote for one or the other corporatist (see fascist) parties. Inside the walls of the building, I am nice and work very well with them. Outside of work, I wouldn't care if they were massacred by a band of rebel socialists. Unfortunately many of them have already procreated.

Is "I have a bridge to sell you" an attack on me or Wikipedia?

And I have a bridge to sell you. That is crap. Probably written by one of his staffers during the Tea-o-Con astroturf movement.

There are persons of sound mind and good heart on both sides of most every issue, XT.
I am no more deluded than liberals are stupid or conservatives are mean.

And yes, since there are absolutely no pro-business Democrats, I will always vote for the Republican - no matter how much I dislike it.

(Except Hillary vs Trump - I'll sit that one out. Cry and get drunk, probably.)

It seemed to me that the guy was making dicta-
torial demands as a condition of taking the job; but
who knows how it will go now?

My reason and ethics did tell me the right choice. I'd prefer Perot.
But I knew I wouldn't get Perot.

Of the other two - I'd rather not have the Democrat.
And there we have it.

You say the big two are the same -
I say "Say wuht?!

I prefer creeping up on Socialism to making a mad dash for it.

Nice to know that you no longer vote in accordance with what your own reason and ethics tell you is the right choice.

So you sacrifice what is good in order to gain what is evil. I think AR had choice words for that type of decision.

You vote socialist if you vote democrat or republican. Either way - more and more intrusive government control and continued massive growth.

Conservatives are lemmings. That's just what they are. They have little if any solid philosophical foundation for their beliefs and support "small government" until it's growing for something they believe in.

Yes. I remember. Because George Read My Lips Bush and Bob I've been a politician for 300 years Dole would have made such great presidents.

Nice that you can be so deluded by the progressive political machine though and keep voting them into office.

I don't live in the Gulch - I have brothers and sisters here.
America - even today - is the Greatest Nation in the History of the World.

I will never give up on it.

I know it's a provocative stretch - but it seems true to me.
If you're not voting for someone who has a chance of winning - you may as well have stayed home.

Yeah, I know you can "have your voice heard" but who the hell is listening. And besides, REAL damage can be done.

After the second time I voted for Perot I vowed never to "vote my conscious" again.

1992: Clinton 43.0%, Bush 37.5%, Perot 18.9%
1996: Clinton 49.2%, Dole 40.7%, Perot 8.4%

Am I the only one who remembers this stuff?

did he vote for the suicidal 2-year budget deal? -- j

answer::: yes.
.

Is that true? I didn't know that.
Yeah, that's not a good sign.

'Course it could be about the "Socially Liberal" side of the OBJ/Lib mantra "Socially Liberal - Fiscally Conservative."

Maybe they just prefer a Republican who isn't trying to take society back to the 50's.

Just wingin' it here. I have no idea of the context.
But since his Speaker-ship is considered the Tea Party's greatest achievement I doubt they endorse his economic views.

But I could be wrong - I often am.