The problem is that liberals are losing their freedoms too! They either do not care or are too caught up in the euphoria of "free" government money that they do not see it!

Liberals think they will be excluded from any loss of freedom that will effect each of us. Also, a majority of the liberals have very little freedom now as they are slaves of the liberal/progressive movement. Ever notice the same liberals for 30 years have complained about the same things for those 30 years, and they keep voting for the same dung heaps over and over. That has to be the height of mental lite weights. I hope there will always be many liberals in the Congress, they make a concrete block look like a rocket engineer.

Too broke to buy a copy machine, a tea party group in Alaska plucked a copier from a landfill.

They can be loud, but they cant organize. And if they organize, then they have lost their libertarian creed..or is it a republican creed...or...no wait...oh never mind.

Leaderless and no policy proposals or solutions.....who can vote for that?

Tom and Wayne....

Specifically, what freedoms have you 'lost'?

". Ever notice the same liberals for 30 years have complained about the same things for those 30 years, and they keep voting for the same dung heaps over and over"

LOL, like the right wing radicals complaining about abortion for nearly 40 years, and with all the republicans in office, has it ever been overturned? No, and it won't, but the dummies keep voting for republicans based on that one issue. LOL

That's exactly right, Reagan. 10,000 out of 300 million is hardly a movement, especially when they admittedly know pretty much what they're against, but not even remotely just what they're for. They get media hype. So has every other fringe "movement." November will be the only true indicator of what the American people want, as usual, and it would be foolish to make a prediction about that just yet.

I don't need to show up anywhere. Like Superlogi says-I just need to vote. I also need to send an occasional check. I was thrilled to donate to Scott Brown. I like betting on a winner.

The times, they are a changin'. Liberal becomes a dirty word so we go with Progressive. Conservative leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth so we turn into Libertarians. Republicanism a little to close (or not close enough) to right-wing hooliganism, switch to a Tea Party. Is the President too "tan"? Then march around with a poster of Obama with a Charlie Chaplin mustache.

Speaking of Charlie Chaplan, does anyone ever remember that is was the Socialists who first noticed what an a$$hole Hitler was? Not that such things validate their ideologies, but it does make those paleo-conservatives, dressed up as libertarians, look historically illiterate.

In the end it is not "economics" or "populism" or even "god given freedoms" that will change things in America or the world as a whole. Technology is the root of all human change and it is not these bizarre, baby-boomer know-nothings that will rebuild a new society out of the ashes of our creaky old system. It is the younger generations, these so called millennials, that have the tech-savvy, rebelliousness and energy to remake the world. Angry, promiscuous, skeptical, cynical, over-medicated and under-valued. Wait 10-20 years and these kids are going to wreak havoc on the values of these Tea Partiers.

The government tapped phones under Bush and some screamed. Obama's admin says it is OK to listen in on cell phones.

We now have government mandated health insurance.

Our tax money is used to save banks, car companies, union pension and medical plans. Our tax money is used to bail out homeowners who got in over their head, built a house next to a river or on the side of a mountain, now it seems i need to pay for someone to rip out the Chinese dry wall in their house.

We are losing the freedom to succed or fail based on our own ability and effort.

Sometimes people fail! Maybe they were lazy or lacked ability, maybe they just had bad luck. Welcome to life!

This move for social justice and equality for all ultimately removes everyone's freedom.

Superlogi, The RIGHT not to buy health insurance comes along with the RIGHT (obligation) to pay the medical bills yourself and not allow the hospital to cover their losses inflicted on them by you by hiking my bill to cover it. No insurance, can't possibly pay the bill - they should wheel you out to the curb SERVICE DENIED.

It also removes iniative and effort. If the final score is already dertmined for you, you needen't bother playing the game.

"They're sure not Democrats. But many aren't thrilled with the Republicans either."

Really? co-workers and friends who voted for PBO are going to Tea Parities in MN, they wanted change and got this and they are scared it is going to get worse.

Devil's son I agree! This plan has not solved that problem. I have always had insurance and I have always paid my medical bills. Now just like before I get to shoulder the burden for the lazy, stupid, or unlucky! The only difference is now I do not have the choice of not paying.

Does amaze me how many dont kNOW hitler was a socialist..

Most of the modern Eurpoean social welfare system was created by him an copiied by others after ww2.

The Tea Party movement is not going to cause a revolution.....Period..... POTUS Obama and Congress listening to and then doing the complete opposite of what the majority of Americans want so they can further their political party's agenda, will cause the revolution, if or when one happens once again in this country. Go back just 20 years when GH Bush was POTUS. NO TEA PARTY..Then Clinton as POTUS.....NO TEA PARTY.. Then GW Bush as POTUS...NOT TEA PARTY.... Now to the present time BH Obama as POTUS...All of the sudden, TEA PARTY....Why? My personal opinion is that it is because in the past 20 years, the majority of the time, Congress and or the respective POTUSs listened to the voice of the majority of American people, while the current Congress and POTUS Obama are ignoring us. People are becoming frustrated and tired of calling, sending letters and e-mails to their respective Representatives in Congress and POTUS Obama only to be ignored, or worse yet seeing them do the complete opposite! Therefore we are being forced by Congress and Obama to take it up one level to get the desired results. I do not advocate a revolution and certainly hope that Congress and Obama listen and make a revolution unnecessary. If a revolution happens it is likely that we need look no further than the White House and Congress to find those who caused it. Meanwhile I will pray for Obama and many in Congress and remember Psalms 109.8 while doing so.

superlogi

What! I am not the most likely to defend socialism, but you comment was flat out moronic. So you found out from Wikipedia that Nazis had the word socialist in their title and figured National Socialism sounds just like International Socialism, so it must be the same thing, right? Give me a break, read a book or two. National socialists in Germany did not want to take over health care, institute a welfare state or even promote any of this "social justice" Glen Beck keeps rattling on about. What national socialists want is for the apparatus of both the state and industry to be subservient to the will of the Party and the specific ethnic identity of said Party.

I am a rather liberal libertarian (love innovation of the private market AND effective governance). I frankly don't like either extreme, far left (communism/socialism) or far right (fascism/nazism), mainly because I have read enough (or at least more than superlogi) to understand what the actual difference is.

Another attempt to belittle and deny the "little people" who aren't wise enough to understand that only politicians know what's best for us. It's funny all the reports from the libs and pundits who claim that they haven't a clue what is happening. Yep, takes real intelligence and integrity to claim not to understand why people don't like tyranny and the destruction of the country. As for there being no underlying issue or issues that unites the movement, what do they think this is all about? Just a bunch of people with nothing better to do than protest for the sake of protesting? I guess their logic is, why would anyone be upset with free healthcare for all!

Now, there was some truth in the article, but not in the way intended. The author is correct that the movement will go nowhere without the republicans. But, the reality is actually the reverse. The republicans are going nowhere unless they embrace the philosophy of the the tea-partiers. The author and those on the left are either very stupid or think that we are too stupid to understand that the tea-party movement is about freedom and financial responsibility and limited government. That means healthcare, an ever expanding federal government and budget busting spending.

If the repubs go back to basics and stand up for these principals, then they and the tea-partiers and all Americans will win. If not, then the socialists will win. For the repubs, this means getting rid of the RINOs in the primaries and keeping focused on these issues. Others will want to ride on the backs of the tea-party, but it will result in a loss if these distractions actually are allowed to take priority.

Super is correct. You need to read some history not assigned to you by the government run school system. Hitler was for total state controlled socialism. Why do you think he started wiping out the jewish people. He reportedly thought they were unfairly successful, taking over business and because of that the non-jewish middle class germans were becoming poorer.

I find the similarities of deomonizing success in the Obama administration (while he conducts unlimited backroom deals to further enrich his uber rich buddies with our money no less), to be very disturbing. We should be united as a people, but now you have people who earned some wealth through legitimate means, scared that this completely corrupt government is simply going to steal it. And the masses are being encouraged to support the theft in hopes of getting some of it for themselves. Pretty sad times in America.

Oh blah blah blah MSNBC.... we're comin... whether you like it or not. And the majority of you big-gov handout Dems are going down. Guaranteed.

Hitler & the Nazis were socialists....uh huh....you guys are so incredibly light on history & facts that it becomes amazing eventually. Some of you are up in arms becuz you have to buy health insurance, others were delighted to support Scott Brown who voted to - yep -require you to buy health insurance, well no conflict there, eh? Guess after you have rewritten the history of WWII, then seeing Sarah Palin as a role model or Dick Armey as anything but a Republican flack or bringing the John Birch Society back from the dustbin....gosh it's all easy if you just close your eyes and believe, isn't it?

Still, the hats and drag outfits must be providing employment for somebody somewhere. Keep it up guys.

Obama '12, get used to it.

Republican operatives look at the possibility of GOP-tea party collaborations with some anxiety, and many tea party activists frankly don't want to see them.

The above was lifted from the article. First off, the TPM represents the feeling of significantly more people than have attended gatherings, myself included. Second, the TPM will not be fielding candidates, nor formulating a platform of their own, but they will endorse those candidates who reflect their values and beliefs. Whether they do so formally or as individuals really doesn't matter since it will be the candidate crafting his message to resonate with the TMP, thus capturing that voting block. Third, if the choice for a given race is between a left leaning liberal or a right leaning conservative, who do you really think they'll (the TPM) vote for? Its a slam dunk, the conservative. I continue to hope liberal democrats and the media continue to marginalize the TPM, come judgement day, November 2nd, the message will be heard loud and clear.

What the hell is wrong with government-mandated health insurance?

You already have government-mandated fire protection (unless you don't pay your taxes) because if you ever have a fire emergency, the fire department will save your life.

Hospitals are required by law to save the life of anyone with an emergency, even if they don't have the coverage to pay for it.

If hospitals are required to treat everybody, why should everybody not be required to buy insurance coverage for their treatment?

The anti-reform folks really had no idea what they were talking about. These tea partiers are only good at getting angry and riled up, they don't actually understand the issues at stake.

Thank God the American People won when health care reform won.

...

Go back to Fox and get fed some more lies! If you don't like MSNBC, don't tune it. Not hard dear!

Actually the movement is already a huge success. The entrenched politicians from both sides and even the media are paying attention to the Tea Party. Not because it is organized or capable of electing their own candidate, but because it represents the voice of the people long since drowned out by the political parties and special interest groups. I for one think the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) movement is long overdue and if politicians even take a moment to consider the message then the message has been delivered.

Considering that roughly 10% of the population actually picks our leaders (The 10 percent in the middle) it should concern the mainstream politicians and media to know that this TEA party movement has the potential to shape the views and positions of those in the middle 10%.

If George Soros can have his political wing - MoveOn.Org, then so can the rest of us poor Americans.

Damn those tea party protesters. Look at what they did in California. Flipped cars, burned crap in the streets etc. etc.... Wait, that was the liberals. Sorry, next story.

Carl W, you forgot to include how our tyrannical and elitist government also forces car insurance down our throats. With out even providing a cheap state directed, consumer funded option. The Horror!!

This reminds me of when a ballot measure was put forth in Oregon to end a state run, consumer funded insurance program for small business. Nothing extravagant, just enough for an investment bank to take you seriously and to get various licenses. The backers (who turned out to be big insurance companies) claimed that when a Midwestern state (I think Minnesota) dropped their state small business insurance program, rates went down. Thank Allah for Free Markets!! Except some reporters looked into it and found that the saving were short lived and a year after the offending Socialist program was scrapped, rates got hiked across the board.

In the end this Tea Party is not a grass roots phenomenon, it is astro-turf. No official leaders? That is cause it is funded by the uber-rich insurance companies to avoid regulation of any kind.

Opps, forgot to mention, the typical liberal slant of pmsnbc is evident in the title of the article. Their attempt is to disparage the movement. This is like asking "did the colonists brew the revolution?" Of course, everyone knows that it was King George and the British Crown that brewed the revolution by their policies. This revolution is being brewed by the current administration and the dems in Congress. Their radical anti-American, socialist, budget busting, jobs destroying agenda is what is rallying the tea-partiers.

Carl W: Are you serious? You really don't know the difference between mandated insurance and fire protection? As a starting point, you might want to read the Constitution. If you've read that and conclude that the federal government can do anything it wants, then why have a constitution? The federal government was specifically limited because of the fear (which is now proving to be well founded) of a large, overpowering federal government. If the federal government tried to run the fire fighting industry, the same objections would be made. A fire department is local and is subject to local politics. Your question also grossly understates what this legislation does. If it was merely to mandate insurance, a one page will could easily do that. At 2,700+ pages, it does a heck of a lot more. It will also lead to the destruction of the insurance industry, which is the stated intentions of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. When the government is given such control over the companies that it can mandate who they can cover, how much they can charge and what services they have to provide, then they have in effect already taken over the insurance companies, and the companies are merely acting as agents for the government. This is what people are upset about. If you can't figure out why this infringes on peoples freedoms and you can't figure out what this is leading to, then your school system failed you miserably. What government system would have the healtcare system be run like? The bankrupt social security system? The bankrupt medicare system? The bankrupt medicaid system? The bankrupt postal system? The fact is that government has never run anything as well as the private system can. Don't believe me? Look at something as simple as the stimulus bill, that bill authorized more spending than we spend annually on our national defense. So far, what do we have to show for it? Increased unemployment! A stagnant economy! But, at least the cronies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been stimulated.

The only thing the tea-party "movement" resembles is a bowel movement.

Their lack of organization shows their intelligence. There's no unified platform, there's no unified leader, there's not unified fundraising, it's a hodge-podge of retired and nearly retired white people who are angry. Their moronic signs about socialism, communism, any other isms, and their unofficial darling, Sarah Palin, tell me all I need to know. What's ironic is that a poll was released recently that displayed the tea-party demographic, and the majority of its members actually benefit from democratic policies. Just because you're the loudest and most vocal, doesn't mean you make the most sense.

And as a liberal, I have to ask, what liberties have I lost exactly? The only thing that's changed, personally for me, since Obama took office is that my taxes went down.

The one single factor that has galvanized "freedom loving" American's is Obama and his extreme radical agenda. The Nation was once enamored with Barack Obama's slickster readings from his ubiquitous teleprompters, "NO MORE". America has seen through the attempts to remold our society into Obama's Marxist image; and, have resoundly rejected his Maoist agenda. God bless our Constitution and the America of our "FOUNDERS". Greg Neubeck

If these tea party types and their Republican shills really wanted to avoid a full-on federal government takeover of health insurance, why didn't they enact a state-by-state insurance program. Then one state could see if another state had a better/efficient program and so forth? Wouldn't that be compliant with a Constitutionalist approach? Combine such a set of programs with the Republican stiffy for tort reform and cross-state insurance dealing and you might have something impressive.

But, as we all know, Republicans and many conservatives could honestly care less about states' rights versus federal control. If it is a conservative social engineering project, like abstinence only or gay marriage, then they are all for a "strong central government". This is especially true after voters in various states passed medical cannabis laws. I wonder what these so called "libertarian" tea-baggers feel about a federal agency like the DEA interfering with a states sovereignty?

Finally, witchrunner, there will always be bureaucrats and aristocrats wanting to chip away at our freedoms. Populist rantings about how thinks "should be" wont produce a revolution to topple those ivory towers. Socialism, free markets, trotskyism, anarco-capitalism, blah blah blah... I say: Give me Wikipedia or give me Death [references cited].

Massachusetts had already implemented Universal Health care and this bankrupted the state! What more do you want?

Wait till the states sue Obama and get this overturned!

The 'tea party' is really a bunch of right wing conservatives still 'fuming' because the majority of Americans voted for Obama!!!

Few people pay that much attention to their 'rantings' and they truely sound like: "blah ...blah... bla" !!! When you see them in person, they look like the 'survivalists' that come out of the woods!! What is up with the camouflage baseball caps? Even the women and children wear them!!! No wonder sarah palin loves their 'movement'!

The only effect the populist Tea Party fad will have, if any, is to get more Democrats elected by splintering the conservative votes.

Not having any leadership or organization might sound great, but without it, it's a ruddlerless vessel. it's easy to all agree on what people are against, but there are a thousand different opinions on what these people are for.

I would be suprised if ANY of the people using the " Tea Bagger " phrase knew anything about the movement EXCEPT what their liberal media outlets tell them.

Hell I doubt that you even know what the T.E.A. stands for.

Atomic :

You think its the Republicans and conservatives that do not carae about the State Rights.. HELLO !!!! its the republicans and conservatives who filed law suit agains the federal gvmnt with the health care to protect the state rights. Its the Dems who dont give a damn about state rights.

The left likes " state rights " when it suits their purpose. AKa smoking pot. It should be legal it should be this is should be that, I can smoke it if I want to ect ect ect.. Simple facts are different though. The left wants the health care bill to be found constitutional by Its either article 6 or 7 of the constitution ( I dont have time to look it up ) basically its the Federal Supremacy law. AKA federal laws trump state laws. BUT in the case of getting high by smoking pot, they want state laws to trump federal laws ( See California trying to make it legal there)

You cannot have it both ways Atomic. IF this health care is found to be legal, then anything ANY State does with the laws of pot will still be illegal.

Be careful what you wish for you might just get it.

Tbart,

Feel free to offer up some facts if you are able. Hello! Total state controlled government is in fact on the far left...a la Obama.

But don't let facts get in the way of your excessive pro-government rant. We wouldn't want to be deprived of your 'knowlegde'. Though one would wonder if you are SO bright, why you would NEED the government to run your life for you. The rest of us are capable of that for ourseleves and do much better when the government doesn't interferre to do that for us. We know we are capable to do for ourselves and when the government gets involved they will TAKE from us, to give to themselves and suckers like you will continue to vote for them because, quite apparently, you failed to meet your own need and expect others to meet them for you. Sad. And pathetic, to say the least.

Remember, the original Tea Party was about taxation without representation. This one is just against taxation and government. My advice is move to Somalia.

And I don't want to see anyone complaining about not being able to forgo health insurance in a hospital or doctors office unless it is 100% self pay. In reality the mandate for health insurance should help root out and identify illegals. Almost everyone else will have insurance.

Tom-1002719 #1.13,

Short, clear, and to the point __— best post here so far (processing sequentially) ! Hope to see more like it as I proceed through the postings.

Is a revolution brewing? Let's hope so. Someone needs to step up and topple this regime.

What I hope the tea party is not is reflected in one gentleman's comment here -- calling people names like "dung heap."

Come on people ...

Stop acting like the political opponents you claim to despise.

Stop with the vulgar mob mentality protest style -- the fact that you wouldn't spit on someone sitting next to you in church, or bring your Obama as the bloody Joker sign into the confessional with you, is a sign that these kinds of tactics are just plain wrong.

Most importantly, STOP ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF BIG GOVERNMENT VICTIMS. You are the government.

Yes, Wakehead, Somalia is truly a libertarian paradise made even better by religious fanaticism. Clearly the solution is NEITHER no government control or all government control. We have a good balance here in America and anyone who thinks healthcare reform or President Obama are capable of really throwing this balance off needs a cold shower. As someone who is both a proud moderate-liberal, I fail to believe that free market innovation is so fragile. For that matter I don't believe freedom is all that fragile. These principles are self-strengthening, something easily evident from studying history.

Communist dialectic stated that society goes from barbarism to feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism to socialism to communism to a perfect Utopia where all proletariats are free, in a bee-hive groupmind sort of way. What we are seeing here in the first decade of the 21st century is actually a technological shift from capitalist/socialist dichotomies to real-world technological solutions that do not require ideological adherence. Technological solutions to how any given citizen can provide for him/herself protection, information, representation and communal support. The idea of governance may, hopefully, one day become obsolete. Sadly we are not there yet, maybe in 20-30 years, depending on exponential technological advances.

Devil's Son #1.14,

Do you personally know "Superlogi" or any other posters with similar "stated beliefs" ? Maybe they have the means to cover their medical bills, or at least their catastrophic medical bills, while paying out of pocket for minor (to them) medical needs.

HA HA I have been off the live wire for awhile, got tired of the same hatred and attempted explanations without verifying facts to back it up. If you want to know what’s in the bill read it, educate yourself, read all the bills leading up to this one that just passed. Read who gets what, tax structure, determination of benefits. There were four bills in both the house and Congress last year with countless amendments from both sides. Go to Library of Congress, then to Thomas, then to bill HR 193, HR 598, HR 3200, and S1240. All were on health care, and then look at the amendments to see who had suggestions and who didn't. These are what the current health care bill was born from. Also look to see what party had what suggestions; but you have to do it with an open mind, and not let ideological views cloud your eyesight nor judgment.

On a final note, the party of no created by Democrats have clearly portrayed them as having no answers or solutions. True or untrue it does beg the question since the health care bill was passed in the way it was, and both the executive and legislative branches having a Democratic majority any failure due to these decisions rest solely with Democratic and progressive ideas and ideologies. It will be interesting to see the outcome, but some may not be for years.

On a final note we will know who told the truth, who lied, which ideologies worked, which didn't, what news stations were biased and which ones weren't; but I hope when the truth does come it will be accepted, and when we find out who was biased they are ran out of business. Most importantly the party that lied and the party that was wrong should have strong considerations given to their ability to lead ever again.

If only half of you lefties knew as much as you claimed to know.....

per CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001743-503544.html

In a collection of three national surveys conducted by the Republican-leaning Winston Group, 57 percent of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans while 28 percent said they were Independents, and 13 percent said they were Democrats. Two-thirds of the group identified as conservative, but 26 percent said they are moderate and 8 percent called themselves liberal.

Seems like the T.E.A. Party movement is more a bi-partisan group then anything in our Federal Gvmnt is.

So gather up 10 people at random.. 4 of thoes people will either be a part of, or agree with what the Tea Party movement is saying.

Tom-1002719

This move for social justice and equality for all ultimately removes everyone's freedom.

How so?

Please explain without appearing to be greedy.

Lets hope they are brewing a revolution. The Democrats and Republicans (expecially democrats like the ignorant congressman STEVE COHEN from Memphis) are the ones that have us in the mess we are in. Although I am not a teaparty person, it looks like they are the most common sense folks. The leftwing mainstream media have tried to say they are racist are disgraceful. They have never been anything more that an anti- tax movement. Race has never been the issue. IT IS ABOUT TAXES AND A WASTEFUL AND CORRUPT GONVERMENT! NOTHING MORE. This issue will bite the dummycrats in the ass come November if they continue in this stupid talk. I guess this is all the dums have.

as usual anything msnbc writes belittles anyone who is not a liberal. i would expect nothing less from them

As usual, republicans don't realize that MSNBC didn't write the article, and it clearly states as such in the by-line, as well as within the article itself. But, I would expect nothing less from them.

By the way...do a Google search of "Analysis: Is the Tea Party movement brewing a revolution". The first entry to come up is (horror of horrors), the Washington Post is carrying the exact same story. In case you weren't aware, The Washington Post isn't exactly considered a liberal publication.

I'll hand it to the teabagging clowns. At least they have the gumption to admit they stand for nothing. They stand against policies, sure; any idiot can criticize. But it takes just a little intelligence and focus to declare what you DO stand for, and that is clearly lacking among the mouth-breathers that make up the vast majority of the teabaggers.

The general lack of intelligence among this group of nobodies will begin their undoing. The fact that no person of intelligence wants to involve themselves with a group of whiners who do nothing but rant and rave about what they are against, without standing for anything tangible, will ensure that there will be few, if any, people joining this group of dolts who stand for nothing. How can you involve people in the discourse who have nothing to offer but mealy-mouth whining and a Pollyanna view of how the world works? They bring nothing to the table.

If you don't have even a semblance of an answer to your complaints, you have nothing to offer to the discourse.

But it gives these clowns a reason to play dress up and have their little theme parties. It would be laughable if these people didn't insist on being taken seriously. I don't take people playing dress-up seriously in the political discourse, especially when they have nothing to contribute but pathetic whining. Get a clue and get a life, teabaggers.

Newsflash for you MSNBC!!! The TEA Party will affect the elections and we do not need an alliance with anyone. Thing is, we are voting for conservatives in November and it just so happens that those people are in the GOP. GOP will win by a landslide...!!!

Newsflash for the tea party -- Nancy in Wisconsin speaks for all of you and you are all to now vote for members of the GOP...as if you weren't going to anyway.

And newsflash for you, Nancy -- almost all of you teabaggers voted for the GOP in the last election and the Dems took over Washington. Just so you know...we're not really afraid of you.

What will make the November election results especially sweet will be the reaction of the smug, superior, arrogant libs who are dismissing the potential impact of this Tea party movement. There is no need to align with any party. It is simply a matter of choosing the candidate, regardless of party, who is most likely to champion conservative values and policies. The process will simply involve identifying which incumbents put us in our current mess, and eliminating them from consideration - then, simply casting votes for the best of the rest. If you libs think this is a small time, limited group of eccentrics, go right on thinking that. While loudmouths like Jim are having a great time calling us juvenile names, we continue to grow and organize.

If no one showed up at Tea Parties the MSM would be belittling the group's ability to fire up conservatives and if too many people show up now they have to say their dangerous. What about letting people exercise their Freedom of Speech, without MSM influencing what people are supposed to thing about a group be it Liberal or Conservative. No wonder the Left leaning MSM are losing viewership.

Winterpark - So here I am replying to some yahoo wants to tell us the Nazis were socialists and you want some facts from ME? Well, chew on this one: the Spanish Civil War [look it up, it's in the books] was a proxy fight that was a warmup for WWII. The Nazis backed the reactionaries run by Franco, and every socialist movement in the world sent people to fight them, including Americans and, yep, Russians. The Nazis were a far-far right group of ultra-nationalists who had totally joined forces with the German industrialists. Yeah, I know the word "Socialist" is in the name of their party, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with their policies or who they were.

So what else? Palin is unqualified, OK that's my opinion one shared by a whole lot of people in this country. It's also my opinion that she is an empty-headed tart.

Dick Armey? He is now masquerading as a non-denominational independent after HOW MANY years in the tender embraces of the Republican party? This doesn't call up any questions for you guys? And the re-emergence of the John Birch Society that you fools have brought about? Well, it is a fact that they have been notably absent from the public stage for the past thirty years or so until the TP gave them a new forum.

So I don't consider myself short on facts, and I don't make them up as I go along. Some folks do, you know.

ps: sorry about the typo

Carianne: Please don't use the word "teabaggers". It is an insult to women and gay men everywhere. Look it up if you don't know what it means.

Tea Party members would be the correct way of identifing those that attend Tea Parties.

Del -- I know exactly what it means and I use it because it's what they initially called themselves before THEY knew what it meant. Oh...and most women and gay men that I know think that it's hilarious they called themselves that, and they continue to use the term for them, as well.

tbart: Thanks for reiterating my earlier point with some factual support. Every time I see the Glen Beck show and he is making a point about the Obama administration by showing film footage of the Third Reich, I laugh and shake my head.

Wait a second... Populous uprising that is tailored for the conservative side while making angry accusations at people who are "different". I get it! Glen Beck is not really comparing Obama to Hitler, he is comparing Tea Partiers to Nazis!

Either way he has proved Godwin's Law to death. And so has this thread.

The tea party is composed of not only Republicans, but Independents AND Democrats. These are not a bunch of goof balls, but rather concerned people about the out of control spending and control of the government.

Carianne: Yuck!!

DelFairchild - How about Baggerz?

The Tea baggers they remind me of the Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland complete with Mad Hatters, ridicules costumes, a Dormouse and a White Rabbit. The Tea baggers - LOL!

Carianne:

No where has this movement ever called themselves teabaggers. I think saying that is disingenuous. This has always been the Tea Party movement.

If you are saying the people that go to a Tea Party are Teabaggers and are what the slang means, then those that don't go to Tea Parties are the opposite - they are Teabaggees. I think I would afterall rather be a teabagger giving and not a teabaggee receiving under your definition.

Witchking - Truly, the White knight is talking backwards, and the Red Queen's lost her head.

msnbc - - - just stop with the bull sh!t

George

I am not greedy I have made the choice to remain with the same company 16 years when i have been offered substantial increases in pay to switch jobs. My decisions were based on what really matters to me my wife and children.

The problem with equality is we are not all equal. Although everyone should be afforded an equal opportunity the results will turn out different. Why? Because we are not equal! You may have a higher IQ than I do, your neighbor may run faster than you, and my neighbor may put in a lot more effort than any of else. The guy two towns over may make a stupid choice and screw up his life or his brother may just have bad luck and get hit by a truck.

If the government decides that the unequal results are unfair and they need to take from you to solve my problems, you have lost the freedom to benefit from your own abilities and efforts. This will lead to mediocrity for all as well.

I had a co worker who was abrilliant chemist. He came here as a refugee from the Soviet Union(before the wall came down). He did not have the choice to leave his job and make less and spend time with his daughter. He was forced to continue his work because he was benefitting the greater good. The line is thin and even with good intentions it can be crossed.

Del...LOL...however you need to revise history and twist words to overcome the teabaggers lack of forethought and knowledge.

I know exactly what the tea party wants.

1. S T O P spending money we do not have!

2. Stop taking our freedom to choose away!

3. Stop taxing us into a third world country!

The tea party is not a republican organization.

The tea party welcomes all people who care about the future of this country.

hussein,

please tell me you're really not that anive to believe only old white people are 'tea party' activists. where i live in nj, at least 1/3 are minorities. all are employed, students or own businesses. they're just tired of being taxed into poverty by someone who exalts sloth and laziness over industry and thrift (a paraphrase from one of Thomas Jefferson's quotes).

btw, the 'tea party' movement got it's start 14 months ago on cnbc, by rick santelli. it's on you tube - go watch it and learn.

I think the Tea Party movement is interesting and can be debated on whether it'll change anything or not. As for the belief that it is a GOP front or composed of any party... well take the article for what it says. It's a bunch of fractured groups under a common name that is united by only one identifiable ideal... that the current two party's don't represent them. The people that compose the movement are people that have been disinfranchised by both parties. And I think both parties have been doing an exceptional job of doing that over the past decade. Between Bush with the GOP and potentially now Obama with the Democrats... I can see validity in the spirit.

Not having a leader or a clear message will allow the media and other mouthpieces out there to speak and riddle the movement with misconceptions. As you all have already noted, the media covered all of the raw emotion garnished by these people, and it's been painted as a demon child of the GOP.

However, if you agree that it's neither GOP or Democrat, and then in turn agree that regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican ~ that we're all doomed at this rate. Then the Tea Party has a place for you.

Three conclusions to this... The Republicans and Democrats shape up and aim for middle of the road bi-partisan concepts (highly unlikely considering how well entrenched both sides are these days), the Tea Party movement dies and we continue to take the abuse from our government thus continuing the end of our glory days as a country, or the movement solidifies behind an independent that has sensible, understandable, and open approaches to right the vessle (highly unlikely in the near future).

Wishful thinking considering that no such person can run the gauntlet when the media streamlines its tactics, and when both parties want to be in power. But... if the people can rise up and capitalize on their distaste of the parties... then it's quite possible. After all, this was a fear of the founding fathers, that the advent of parties would negate the pursuit of common good (what is the common good is open to opinion, but I for one enjoy the freedom of choice and responsibility and consequences that come with those).

"What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

tbart,

Ultra far right would be anarchy, no leadership. Ultra far left is total control by the state.

All dictators are for total control. They are far left.

Winter, not accurate! Check your definititions anarchists are on the left monarchs are on the right. The right and left are not government or no government. Tyrants on both sides of the spectrum.

Geez -- no wonder they can't figure out if the President is a Marxist, or a Socialist, or a Nazi. They aren't even caught up to know which end of the political spectrum is which.

Carianne, I am well versed on the political spectrum and I believe the President is a Socialist leaning to being a Marxist. I base my opinion on who is associates are. I base it on his own writings. I base it on the actions I see him taking.

Only someone ignorant or a liar could claim he is not a socialist.

Winter, Tom

Both are incorrect. Anarchist are neither left nor right, it is a state of "no rule" and may be supported by any affiliation. Anarchists strive to facilitate change by causing the collapse of all law and rule generally to install new leadership. This can be affrected by either right, left or middle leaning factions.

Monarchies are not necessarily Dictatorships and again are not Right or Left inspired. Some Monarchies are very conservative and others are more liberal. The main premise is that overall conrol lies within the Ruling Class or family.

In fact the terms right and left are just a reflection of societies cultural values and not really political affiliations. These definitions have changed marketedly over history. In the mid 1800's one might have described the Republican party as much more lideral given their views on equality for women and slavery.

Carianne, that is because most high schools in this country teach civics the same way it was taught at the HS I went to: taught by a moronic baseball coach.

I never got above a C+ on any of the papers I wrote for that class because I generally took a liberal slant. Conversely, my economics teache at the same hillbilly school was also a conservative, but was a great teacher who gave me extra-credit one day because I was the only one in the class to identify a picture of Strom Thurmond shaking our teacher's hand.

The moral of the story: Morons on the left are no better than the uneducated far right, they are just slightly more dangerous. These Tea Party types are not libertarians nor are they mad about excessive government spending. If they were they would have formed during Bush43, instead of halfheartedly retro-actively denouncing him. They are Paleoconservatives who believe that it is the "Right Way" or the highway. They know in their bones that Obama is the Antichrist who will lead their daughters to interracial marriages and turn their sons into Carnival dancing Drag Queens.

Tom...lol...you're funny. Please tell me which of President Obama's "actions" lead you to believe that he is a socialist (and don't pull the whole government takeover of healthcare BS. Taxes are supposed to be used for the common good. The common good is citizens who can see a doctor if they need to so that taxpayers aren't paying for only catastrophic care. It's citizens who don't go bankrupt and lose their homes because they got sick and their insurance company "death panel" decided to drop them). Unless you are going to tell me that you never drive on roads or highways, never attended or had your children attend public schools, have never or will never use the help of police officers or firefighters if you need them, and either have refused or will refuse Medicare and Social Security when you retire, you have no basis to be accusing ANYONE of socialism.

Carianne since you have already defined anything for the common good as not socialism. I am wasting my time speaking to you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

In fact all of these things you list are aspects of socialism. Socialism is not always bad and not all Socialists are evil but you can not say something is not socialism because you believe it is good.

I am opposed to the loss of freedom. Medicare and SS already existed when I came to be. I am perfectly happy however to take what I earn and provide for myself. I have earned my lot in life good and bad.

I think we all have some responsibility to society as well but where is that line?

If the line is moved too far how do you move it back?

I served in the Army an aspect of socialism approved in our Constitution.

Tom...ummm...thank you for proving my point. We have aspects of socialism in our country...but we are not a socialist country. So...I'm still waiting...what "actions" is the President taking that make him a Socialist?

Steve,

On Anarchists and the left.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Carianne

While I tend to agree with your assessment, nonetheless there is ample evidence that the U.S. is movely towards a much more European Socialistic style of governance that relies heavily upon social programs to correct social and economic inequities. And yes, public schools, Social Security, and Nationalized medicine are signs of these social tendancies.

One may certainly argue whether or not a more socialized society and political system is good or bad, but there is little denying that the trends have been toward more governmental control and oversight. This can't be solely blamed on Obama or the Democrats as Republican Presidents have also contributed to expanding social program such as the military and dictating public morality.

The thing that worries me about how the current administration operates is how they passed a healthcare bill that is probably going to be very problematic, without regard to the high rate of opposition by the population. Whether you support or oppose the concept, I believe we should all be concerned that this legislation will become a taxpayer sinkhole and a massive boondoggle for later generations.

Steve -- when you say "European Socialistic", which country are you talking about? There are many countries in Europe that have Universal Healthcare...that doesn't make them Socialist countries. It seems like people on the right want to give social programs a scary name so that people won't want to even look into how those programs might benefit them.

Also...please remember that while, yes, there was a high opposition to the healthcare bill that was passed, much of that opposition came from progressives who thought that the bill didn't go far enough towards a more universal system.

Carianne what is your definition of a socialist country?

Do you not see that our current administration is seeking more government control of all aspects of our lives. I am no fan of the constant growth of government during any admin but this is unprecedented.

Carianne you can agree with the President and even like what he is doing but that does not make it not socialism. Socialists love socialism, apparently you love socialism, I recognizev the need for some socialism but enough is enough!

Oh...and Steve -- I just re-read my post and wanted to clarify. I realize that you used the word "Socialistic". I was trying to respond to you, as well as clarify the point to Tom that just because you may believe that some socialistic programs are valuable for the country, doesn't make you a "Socialist". I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Tom...unprecedented? You might want to study up on your history...specifically a President we had in our past named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Heard of him? You know...the guy who created several of the socialistic systems that we have in place today? And, yet, even with those, we still aren't a Socialist country.

So...now...I will ask one more time. What programs (besides healthcare) prove to you that our President is a Socialist. After all, you made the claim that anybody who doesn't admit that he is, is either "stupid or a liar". And, yet, after I have asked several times, you have refused to give me an answer.

Carianne the good news is today we have the right to disagree and to publicly express our opinions and to criticize our government if we choose. this is not the case in a place like Venezuela.

This too started as a move to the left for the good of the people.

Not accusing Obama of wanting to be a dicatator but remember each successive President has what was left to him and that power in different hands can be abused. The Constitution was meant to protect us from that. Our current President stated that the Constitution is flawed. Our President like some before him continues to stretch the role of government beyond what the Constitution provides.

Carianne

While Socialist practices in Europe stop short of the Socialist practices in say China, European governments employ many Socialist strategies not just to provide social programs, but also to dictate how the population should and culturally and economically. France for example passes laws on dress and tries to dictate how to be French. Germany's government controls labor though heavy support of unions.

Many people equate socialism with communism, but they are not the same. While Commiunism is more of a political philosophy, socialism is more of an attitude. Its premise is that government sould take care of everyone very often through economic means, and the redistibution of assets. This also tends to increase government size, and since government has no competition it becomes very inefficient and costly to operate.

Anyway, while its obviouse that some level of government intervention is required, Americans must be careful about how far they allow these social programs to exppand. I mean I don't think the the government wants to make the US into a China, but without thye ability for the people to have a say, Democracy is doomed.

Okay, Tom -- I give up. I have asked you three or four times, specifically, what proof you have that the President is a Socialist and you have given me nothing. I guess we can now agree that he isn't. Have a good day.

Please stop using the same tired and wrong statements.

Mass. Universal Healthcare is a STATE program and must be in compliance with the state constitution; Obamacare is a FEDERAL program and must be in compliance with the US Constitution. Auto insurance is required by the STATE, not the Federal government, to pay for damage caused by you. not to you.

Capitalism, socialism and communism are ECONOMIC systems and if you believe the goverment should run a large percentage of the industries, then you are a socialist. If you believe the government should run all industries, then you are a communist.

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement to apply pressure to both national parties to be more fiscally conservative (don't spend money you don't have), reduce taxation (don't tax everything to have more money to spend) and to reduce the size of the Federal Government (all 3 branches of the Federal government to have less of an impact in our lives).

If being a frustrated, tax-paying, Jesus loving (not a Tea Party issue) gun owner (NRA issue, not the Tea Party) makes me a "wing nut"; great send me my card. I'll show it with pride.

Carianne although it is a waste here I go.

The government has taken over the healthcare system this is socialist, the government has taken over student loans, this is socialist, the government is exerting control over the auto industry this is socialist, the government is taking the authority to take over any financial busines that it thinks might fail socialism, The federal government is mandating more and more social programs to the states socialism. The President is forcing the states to submit more and more to the feds on education (Bush did it too) socialism.

You are right FDR took us in to socialism and Obama is taking us further. Being a socialist country does not make you China but it does limit freedom. Some may want to give up their freedom I do not!

I work for a lot less than I could make because I want to dictate my own hours and projects.

Some may be happy trading choices for "free" healthcare paid for by someone else, but I am not.

It has been fun but I have to go earn some money to cover the $800 I spent on my daughter's glasses yesterday.

Mark,

Your close, Socialism and capitalism are economic structures, however Communism is a socilal condition thaat manifests itself politically. Communism and Socialism frequently coexist and result most often result in a command econonomy. Socialistic economic pratices have become somewhat muddled with Nations like China still essentially Communistic, but trying to embace a more Capitalistic approach. What I mean is that the line between the two is much blurrier, perhaps falling somewhere in between.

As far as the TEA party is concerned, you seem to be the only person that can actually define the goals and stance of the group, which at least by your account are very reasonable. Unfortunately I think that the memo has not completely filtered down to all the members.

But hey, we all hate paying Taxes. From my personal perspective, I paid more tax under GWB than under Clinton and this year I'm getting back money for the first time in 8 years. And I am a higher earner (though I do make under 250K). Not that it makes any difference, the State of California is taking it all. Now there's a place that needs a TEA party.

So are taxes really going up? Is there evidence that the TEA Partiers are paying more? And Sarah Palin? Really?

Carienne,

Any time a program is developed that makes some people pay more (i.e,) healthcare, so others can be subsidized that is about as socialist as it gets. Forcing people onto government healthcare is socialist at least and hinges right there on communism.

Extemely stepped ('progressive') income taxes are one of the planks of the communist manifesto, look it up!

In fact there are few programs Obama is proposing that are not socialist or even communist. Cap and trade is next, forcing everyone to pay more for everything, to generate more revenue for the govenrment, who will use some of it to again 'subsidize' others. Wealth redistribution is socialist/communist.

Bailing out companies with tax payer money is definitely NOT capitalism.

Next up, forced unionization with Obamas new labor pick. Is that socialism, or communism, you decide.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/ I think the tea party could unite with liberals on these types of issues. If there was SOME common gground it may actually affect things. ExxonMobil paid no taxes last year........none. Check it out. Where did I get it? FORBES. You can look it up on there as well. Look at GE as well. No corporate tax means we have to shoulder the burden as taxpayers regardless of party. Its just not right. COME ON TEA PARTIERS GET BEHIND SOME GOOD CAUSES.

Winterpark - So according to your definition, the Nazis were socialists, and so was Napolean, Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Czar Nicholas, and Ghengis Khan. 'Cept they wern't, you know, they were all right wing dingbats.

Anyway, that's all kind of peripheral, isn't it? My big question is how it's going with your initiative to run Michael Steele agains Obama in '12? I do hope you're serious about that one.

SteveJ- I agree that no nation is operating within a purely capitalist, socialist or communistic economic system and that the form of government (democratic, republic, monachy, dictatorship, etc., etc.) that each nation has can/will warp the ecomonics and politics into a unique blend. I believe that the US must resist the urge to follow European models, as they seem to be in more financial distress than us. Even the most charitable liberal out there must acknowledge that the programs must be paid for and can cause a democratic socialist country to slowly recede into a socialist/communist dictatorship.

I will also agree that the timing of the rise of the Tea Party movement and President Obama's election could give the appearance of racist motives. While there may be racists within the Tea Party (as with ALL organizations, racism is not color blind), I do not believe that is the driving force. Many who I have spoken with were not happy with W's spending either, but the main inspiration (or final straw) was the Democratic/liberal gaining control over Congress and the WH.

As far as taxes, it seems that recently there have been more suggestions of additional taxes on products and services that have been deemed "harmful" (tobacco, soft drinks, etc.) or "luxury items" to pay for social services (schools, healthcare, SS). I live in PA and our current Governor, Ed Rendell, is the king of taxes on harmful items (tobacco, gambling, home ownership) for the benefit of public schools; even though he destroyed the Philly school system while he was involved in it. I don't believe TP pays more taxes, we just fear more are coming down the pike.

Sarah Palin is a good speaker, but lacks the experience to be our POTUS (just like President Obama). She should have served her term in Alaska if she wanted to be taken seriously. Quite honestly, I don't think there is a good conservative candidate that is currently electable.

tbart,

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/w-cleon-skousen/what-is-left-what-is-right

Or this one...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html

Or this one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8I9pLmuyyA

winterpark - oh boy oh boy oh boy....yep I looked at all of them. It's hard to say where to start except that the history has a lot of blurring motions in it and the the theory seems to be based on the idea that if you just say something, that makes it so.

The King of France [before their revolution] was a socialist. Actually he was a determined practitioner of oligarchy, a philosophy about as far from socialism as it is possible to get. Hitler would have thought him too extreme.

The socialist and communist world were both very approving of Hitler and the Nazis before WWII. Sure they were, that's why they showed up in Spain to fight the Nazis at first opportunity.

It is illogical that both left wing systems and right wing systems will lead to tyranny if they are followed to extremes. Well buddy, that's how it works. You get to Stalin or the Khmer Rouge at the extreme left and to Pinochet or Hitler on the right. There is no political system that becomes less malevolent or more freedom-loving as you move to its extremes.

And Libertarianism, man that whole sopohomoric trip just makes me so tired. And I do mean sophomoric - I bet there are more libertarians in sophomore dormitories than in the entire rest of the country. It all sounds so cool about 65% of the way thru, and it all falls totally apart with the remaining 35%. Just the thing for people who haven't developed their minds to the point where they can come to conclusions.

Well, this country is not based on the idea of taking one philosophy as far as it can possibly go, it is based on a system of checks and balances so as to prevent exactly that. Obama was elected to check the rise of the religious right and the celebration of ignorance we saw in the last administration. The far left wants him to go farther farther farther, but I doubt he's gonna do that, so far he has not. And you guys will no doubt never tire of calling him a Socialist, but you are so far off the mark that you make laughingstocks of yourselves.

And how is that thing going to run Michael Steele against Obama, anyway. Seems like something you could really sink your teeth into.

My comments regarding Michael Steele vs Obama were simply in support of my position that opposing Obama's policies, does not make you racist -- contrary to the many juvenille accusations of such. If you don't think he should punish success, reward failure and rob tax payers blind to pay off his special interest buddies (unions, GE, Goldman), that does not mean you are racist. I would support Steele and his policies of free markets, individual liberties and the opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country.

I know since it is conceptual and not literal,. it may be difficult for some to understand. There will always be people who stand around looking at the trees, not realizing they are in a forest.

Mark,

I agree with your points, they are reasonable and well articulated. I suspect that there are sensationalistic fears being generated that our nation is falling into the abyss of Socialism/Communism, mostly because of our deep rooted culture that expects free market exchange.

If you believe in the Kyclos or Machevellian theory our Democracy will next degenerate into anarchy to begin again the political cycle. I see this long before Socialism becomes an issue.

The Tea Party reminds me of the Tax revolts during the seventies. and unfortunately will probably be as effective. I tend to vote the GOP, but the party has adopted too many fringe elements and I am torn. Admitedly I am more moderate than conservative, and I really would like to see the party focus on political issues rather than social ones. It seems that there has been a mass effort the mobilize the ignorant (on both sides) merely to advance an agenda that is not helping the American people. We really need new leadership that will shrink government, eliminate waste, but make sure that any social programs actually benefit those that are in need.

Oh, wait, I just woke up.

Winterpark - My comments regarding Michael Steele vs Obama were simply in support of my position that Obama would wipe the floor with him.

What?? You don't concur? Why then you know just what to do, don't you? Really WP, bring it on...

And no, all the TP types aren't racist, but they sure manage to enable and support the ones that are.

By the way, you see Mitch McConnell today driveling on about slavery not being important enough to note in his laudatory comments regarding the Confederacy?

WP - And do you TP types really see yourselves as anarchists? From the looks of the crowds i've seen at the rallies and Town halls...jeez they really don't look like anarchists.

WP - Uh oh...my mistake it wasn't Mitch McConnell, it was your new guy Bob Mcdonnell, VA Gov, who was honoring the Confederate soldiers but managed to breeze right by the main reason the Civil War was fought, namely the presumed right of the Confederacy to enslave black human beings. "not that important...' he says.

Right, keep bringing those moderate Repubs along. And does Mr. Steele have any thoughts on this?

http://civilwar.com/overview/

slavery was one of three issues.

Think it would have happened if the slaves had been freed before the war? Slavery was the#1 predominant issue and no amount of revisionist wishful thinking will change that.

Any comments yet from Michael Steele, WinterParks candidate to run against Obama in '12?

The tea party is angry about big government but never address the elephant in the room...our military spending. America spends more than all the countries of the world combined. This years military budget is the largest on record. The pentagon is corrupt, and out of control. 800 bases around the world. The constitution does not provide for military occupations. Instead of cutting social security...quit supporting endless conflicts and war. They war has created new enemies and makes us less safe.

Here is Obama working for America!!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/green-stimulus-jobs-china-9791423

RAT POISON....Your post was one of the most thoughtful I've ever read. I want to vote for you.....

Problem with a lot of people, all talk no vote!

Where I live, the nearby largest city in the state, 250,000, just held a municipal election - it took 3,000 votes to "win" in a city district - so much for the theory that the cities population reflects voters participation.

Welcome to the USA

The leftists think that the Teaparty is about republicans. I think it is about voting out everyone and starting fresh. Unfortunately, most are too stupid to believe theirs reps are not the problem, regardless of the party affiliation, so they will vote for the same crap again.

PC is at the root of this whole problem you cant call it like ya see it any more without some baby pu$$y saying oh that hurts my feelings or oh thats racist, what a bunch of pu$$ies.I myself call like i see it and if everybody started doing that we would be better off instead of always worring about if anybody likes it or not.

This is why we cant get anything done

If the Tea Party is as ineffective and void of strength as the author and many contributors to this string of comments would suggest, why bother to write about it at all? The idea behind this movement is "for the People" to become directly involved in and take back control of the government of the United States of America. To say that both the Republicans and Democrats are not worried about this is laughable. Maybe one of you could tell us why Oba-a-a-ma has formed a committee to determine what they should do about Glen Beck and the other conservative forces. I think it must be because they are not worried about them but want them to think they are important, and effective.

BCB, Tea Partier

#1.3 It would be a mistake to underestimate the Tea Party groups just as it was a mistake to underestimate the original tea party.

This is the first time in my lifetime that the grassroots has spontaneously risen as a group to protest what the government is doing. It's a landmark happening and will be interesting to watch.

the original 'TEA PARTY" and REAL issues, like "no taxation withouyt representation", this tea party is only about getting Republicans elected...

Anyone else notice how quite these "tea party" people were during the Bush years of uncontrolled spending?

Anyone else notince the this group of "tea baggers" are funded by the RNC and promoted by Faux?

Just another partisan group of hypocrites...

I assure you that the Tea Party movement will have an influence on the November elections. Folks are looking for the more fiscally conservative candidate that won't tax and spend them to death. Political party won't matter much. This election, voters will be paying close attention to a candidate's position on the issues and, more importantly, on their record.

Mark my words, there will be change we can believe in this November. The pen, or in this case, the No. 2 pencil and a ballot, are mightier than the sword.

Zaphod

the original 'TEA PARTY" and REAL issues, like "no taxation withouyt representation

Passing laws and placing the peoples "taxes" into the hands of world banks against the will of the people is taxation without representation.

Passing laws and placing the peoples "taxes" into the hands of world banks against the will of the people is taxation without representation.

No it is NOT... you had representation! Just because YOU do not like what was done, does not mean that you were without representation!

Your area elected it's representation just like every other area did!

I assure you that the Tea Party movement will have an influence on the November elections

Indeed, they will push the Republicans so far to the right with people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, that independants will run away!

You assume that the independants will just stay home and not vote....

Fact remains that the Republicans have NOT changed their fiscal policies AT ALL! FACT is that they outspent every administration in the entire history of the United States, and the Tea party people were SILENT..... The RNC has NOT changed it's policies, they still support 'trickle down economics' which is a PROVEN FAILURE! They still support the off shoring of US jobs! they still have banking lobbyists like Phim 'forcloseure' Gramm writing their economic and deregulation policies!

Why in HELL would anyone want to go BACK to that?

The coice in November will be to go forward with what appear to be working, for now, or back to what we know FAILED!

Zaphod

No it is NOT... you had representation! Just because YOU do not like what was done, does not mean that you were without representation!

That's just another major heap of Oba-a-a-manure dude. When the people are overwhelmingly against the governments actions and the elected officials pass laws in spite of this knowledge spending the peoples wealth for government"s design and purposes, that is taxation without representation. There is no way for you to spin it that amounts to anything but tyrannical dictates from Oba-a-a-ma and the dems.

The choice in November will be to continue forward with the globally proven failed policies of Socialism/Communism or return to what has proven to work for over 200 years. Government under the Constitution of the United States of America as these treasonous bastards are sworn to do. If these toads want Americans to obey the law, they need to set the example by doing so themselves.

That's just another major heap of Oba-a-a-manure dude

No, Duuuude, it is just the US Constitution... You do not like it, feel free to TEAR YOUR ARSE, and go to the religion based government you love so much, I hear there are many to choose from in the middle east. Enjoy getting to stone women to death!

When the people are overwhelmingly against the governments actions and the elected officials pass laws in spite of this knowledge spending the peoples wealth for government"s design and purposes, that is taxation without representation.

No, it is taxation WITH representation! You just voted for people paid off by other people, or your candidate lost! Either way, you are represented, as our constitution mandates! Your Tea Party proposed solution of electing Republicans were sure not fix the problem! They grow the Governemnt and spend our taxes as good as the Democrats do! You are just pissed that the Democrats want to attempt to pay for it all!

The federal government grew 39% under Bush. He tried to destroy all of our rights. Why didn't you scream and yell then? The Tea Party is a party of hate, hate and more hate. You are still living with the Bush era. The Bush era is over, (thank God) and he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of America. Our country is facing big problems now, created by Bush and the republicans, it started with Reagan. You scream about everything that the government does, but you use all the things that the government provides. The Tea Party is run by Freedom Works and are a group of phonies. Your party has threatened elected officials with death, spit on them, carry disgusting posters of President Obama. If you dislike the government then stop using the things it provides. Go worship Sarah Palin and Freedom Works. We are sick and tired of listening to your party garbage.

Tom,

Specifically, what freedoms have you 'lost'?

In the last few years I have lost the freedom to let people in a building I own and pay taxes on smoke in it.

I will soon lose the ability to pay my medical bills without involving a third party to intervene.

The state I live in has lost the freedom to secede from the union, without a threat of war being placed on us.

The state I live in lost the right to refuse government money without being threatened.

The state I live in continues to lose 10th amendment rights?

Tom...a state does not have the right to secede from the Union and there is no new "threat of war being placed on us." That right has never existed, which the South found out in the Civil War. You lost the freedom to let people into your building? that is non-sensical, at best. what is going on? Do you have FBI agents outside stopping people when they try to get in? You have to pay taxes on smoke in your building? Let's hope it doesn't burn down. What third party is going to be intervening when it comes to paying your medical bills? there are three parties there, right now...you, the medical community, and the insurance company...what do yu mean by "third party" intervention if you aren't speaking of th three that I listed? I love the list, though. it is like a talking point memo or something.

Lee -

He's saying that he lost the right to let people smoke in a builing he owns and pays taxes on. As a business owner, many rights have been taken away since with the present and past administrations. Now mandating that businesses provide healthcare is just another "right" taken away. If the goverment would just let the market work then many of the changes might occur naturally over time. If people really wanted to eat where there is no smoking, then there will be non-smoking places to eat (which there are in many towns where there isn't a mandate). Businesses will also have to start posting nutritional information. If there was demand for this, it would (will) happen naturally. Many already post this info on websites for people who want to look it up. Why force business owners to make this pricey change? They would eventually be asked to do so by there patrons if it was a "wanted" service or people would stop eating there.

Lee-1739823 - The Constitution left most of the powers to the State, and the Government has taken them away. The states freely signed on thinking they had these powers, the federal government has taken them away and now the states can't leave. Isn't that the defination of abuse of power?

If I own a business in MN it is against the law for people to smoke in the building. So yes I have lost a freedom.

Even if I can afford to pay my medical bills the Government has stepped in and said you either will buy a medical insurance policy that they say or I will pay a fine. So yes I have lost that feedom.

A independent movement, don't attempt to pigeonhole the movement as a Republican movement; it appears they are as upset with the Republicans as they are with the Democrats. The movement is in it's infancy, but it has grown beyond any of the media,political consultant expectation; if the tea Party finds a unifying spokesperson it can easily become a national force(please don't let it be Palin,she is a loony tune).

Corporate pigs whined when they had to stop working children 12 hours a day also. If you right wing folks really care about "the people" then care about the people and not the companies.

TomPlymouth - Regarding the Whine List...

1] Minnesota [where I live too] decided that you do not have a right to endanger the health of your workers or your nonsmoking customers. Also that it is not in anybody's interest to encourage people to get cancer and emphysema. The smoking population is declining and should not be in a position to inflict the results of their habit on anybody else.

Get your butts outside, figuratively and specifically.

2] If you are so bound and determined to pay your own medical bills, go ahead, do it and pay the price. Unless you are a multimillionaire you are not engaging in self-insurance you are rolling the dice and will sure as anything expect some medical care when you end up in the hospital after a car wreck or that lung cancer kicks up. Also, if you really can pay all those bills yourself then the penalty for not having insurance can't look that big.

But really, grow up and deal with it - we all need to be insured.

3] Clearly most of you TP types would have been much happier under the Articles of Confederation, but that idea was scrapped pretty quickly because the Founders realized that the country needed a strong federal govt, which we got with the Constitution. And really, I think most TP types would be actually be happiest if they could live in the Confederacy after the South had won the Civil War. That idea might seem feasible if you close your eyes tight and wish it so, but there are quite a few logical breaks between here and there.

And please don't secede Minnesota from the Union, I'd really resent it.

4] The primary job of the Supreme Court is to interpret law - passed by the Congress and signed by the Prez - to determine whether it is consistent with the Consititution. They have decided that the feds can regulate intertate commerce, and they have decided in that fashion very consistently for many many years. Case law is the strongest law, so what they have to say about the HCR law is pretty likely to stand, and I'm expecting them to OK it.

I know you guys think the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and the interstate highway system is all unconstitutional, but don't hold your breathc cuz you might turn blue.

tbart - so what you are saying is, if you agree with the law it is a good law? How are you going to feel if the bill that is in the house (I believe the house but maybe the senate in MN) that would require all children just learn to walk to where a helmet? What about a law that would require every person to take an economics class?

He's saying that he lost the right to let people smoke in a builing he owns and pays taxes on.

\
well...he should have said that. Go back and read his post. His context is off or something. Look:

In the last few years I have lost the freedom to let people in a building I own and pay taxes on smoke in it.

read that outloud...does it sound like he is saying tht he lost the right to let people smoke in his building? no. it reads like he is saying that he has lost the freedom to let people come into his building and he has to pay taxes on any smoke that is in it. People need to say what they mean. this is about as clear as mud.
The right to smoke in an office building is that important? really? what about the people who don't smoke? the trouble with laws regarding things like smoking and drinking is this...is the person's right to smoke more important than the other peoples' rights not to be around something that could potentially make them sick? When one person's rights takes over and can cause harm to another person, we run into trouble. I understand it may not be fair, but life isn't fair. If I remember correctly, these anti-smoking laws began long before Obama took office and the last I heard, they are regulated by states. I live in Tennessee and can tell you that when I go to Kentucky (a state where babies are weaned on cigarettes), I can tell. They have smoking in public places. You can't even go to the grocery store in Kentucky without walking into a completely smoke-filled room. It is horrible. between the cigarette smoke and smoking barns (when they smoke the tobacco in the fall), Kentucky is one of the worst places I have ever been concerning allergies.Don't believe me? go to Kentucky. That is why we have laws about smoking. Like I said, it is usually regulated by the states. So, if people don't like the laws, they should talk to someone in their local or state government. complaining about it won't make it better. believe me.

And please don't secede Minnesota from the Union, I'd really resent it.

I hope Tennessee doesn't, either. I would have to move up north (and I hate cold weather). As you said, these Tea party people seem to be in the south (I will never understand that)...I just hope we don't have a repeat of the Civil War. Someone needs to go to South Carolina and make sure the tea party is kept out.

tbart, it is also interesting how these anti-government individuals always blame the FEDERAL government for state actions, such as the MN non-smoking law (and most other states now.) The states are doing much more to 'take away" your rights and "freedoms" than the federal government is, and so are local governments. That is the problem with the use of the words "freedom" and "rights". There is a very fine line between where one person's freedom or rights end and another person's freedom or rights begin. I have just as much right to NOT breathe another person's smoke as that person has to pollute MY air with his/her smoke. A person has the right to pollute his/her own body, but does NOT have the right to pollute another person's. THAT is the reason for the anti-smoking laws. Let a smoker wear a plastic bag over their head and contain their smoke within the bag if they want the freedom to smoke anywhere, hehe.

Saxon,

You are correct. The Tea Party Movement consists of people fed up with both Republicans and Democrats. The media and others will associate them with Republicans because they are conservatives, but we all know there are very few conservatives left in office. Bush certainly wasn't conservative and a lot of the rumblings began while he was President.

People are tired of the crap being spewed. They want a voice, they want someone - ANYONE - to listen to them.

I find it humorous when the media wants to portray them as hate mongers who want to stir up violence, when the same media ignores the words of our President -

"If they bring a knife, you bring a gun"

"You need to get in people's faces"

"Bring it on"

All direct quotes that are intended to incite physical altercations.

Of course, we have yet to see any actual proof of the name calling and spitting that they want to attribute to the members.

It appears that, although many want to laugh them off, they have put a lot of people in a defensive mode. That's what happens when people are scared.

TomPlymouth - It's not a good law because I agree with it [what sense does that question make anyway?] but because it protects the right of third party people not to be injured by you and your smoking clientele. And as noted above, it wasn't the feds that passed the no-smoking law, it was the state. Any contradictions in your whine?

Lee -Don't worry about those South Carolina baggers, they're all out hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Tom Plymouth, Your state never had the right to secede from the Union. Our first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation clearly stated "Perpetual Union". Representatives from SC., VA., NC., GA., all signed it. Lincoln simply enforced the law and like all Presidents fufilled the oath to "perserve, protect, and defend the Constitution".

tbart, lol. true. true. Let's just hope they stay there.

Tom said

In the last few years I have lost the freedom to let people in a building I own and pay taxes on smoke in it.

A long time ago I lost the freedom to shoot the bastards who blew their disgusting cancer in my face. I guess we are even.

Amen virgo. The Constitution says "equal rights for all" but did NOT define how to resolve disputes when the rights of one person interferes with the rights of others. So what gives a smoker any more rights to pollute the air that everyone else has to breathe than those who DON'T want to breathe it have the right to say NO SMOKING in a public place. And smoking is just one of those fine line issues. Water pollution, earth pollution, air pollution all affect others, not just the one causing the pollution. That is why we have the EPA rules and state/local rules to control pollution. Is that what Tom and others refer to as losing THEIR rights? Just another example of the ME, ME, ME society we have become.

Lee-

Funny you should bring up KY because I actually live in KY. I recently moved back after living in Nashville, TN for two years. I'm not a smoker, nor was I raised by smokers. I personally don't enjoy going to places that allow smoking (there is not single grocery store in KY that I've been too that allows you to smoke inside by the way) but it is my choice rather I go there or not. There are certain places I don't go to because they are very smoky but then there are others that are smoke free (the smoke free businesses don't do as well as the ones that do in my town though). It's my choice. I can choose to frequent them or not. If enough people decide they don't like going to smoky places they business will lose customers and will adapt and make it smoke free. I know living in Nashville, every place was smoke free. Although it was nice, I don't feel that it is the governments job to mandate it. If there is demand for something then it eventually will happen because people will make money off of it. As far as endangering employees, I also worked in restaurants that were not smoke free. Again, it was my choice. I could have taken an office job or serving job elsewhere but I didn't. It was my choice to do so. I don't agree with smoking and I think it is a nasty habit but it's not my place to tell them what they can and can't do. I'll just take my business elsewhere and eventually if there is enough demand more places will be smoke free....I just believe that many business work this way. If the government would stay out of it, the market would correct itself.

Although the anti-smoking is a state law, they fed gov't is not mandating that all restaurants post their nutritional info on the menu. Although I like this, it shouldn't be mandated by the government. Their are many places that already post the info online for those of us who care and if you are ordering a Big Mac do you really care how many fat grams your eating?! Again, eventually this would have probably been done anyway because as more people want to eat healthy the demand for this would have been there. Restaurants would have done it anyway to compete with each other. Now the goverment is going to MAKE businessed do this costing them tons of money that they might have used to hire more people.

On another note: Just my Thoughts is correct. Many of us are fed up with both the Dems and the Repubs which is why the Tea Party movement came about. It is getting a bad rap on a national level but localy our organization has been very informational and non-confrontational, so I don't believe it is all bad. They definately need to get a leader who actually stands for the Constitution though!

Tom - Plymouth #2.9,

Actually, a requirement for ALL to take classes in economics would be beneficial to the whole country __— especially, if they have to prove by via exams, that they really understand its principles.

"Uncle Sam" is not a sugar daddy. If you want something, work for it. Know how to prioritize needs. Needs come before desires.

Even when I was a smoker (free and clear for 6 months now), I preferred smoke free establishments. I even supported municipal and state laws enforcing it. Are such things "Constitutional"? Hell if I know, or even care. It just makes sense that the right to smoke poisonous and highly addictive substances like tobacco should be subservient to those who don't. Simple logic: can a smoker breath easily in clean, nicotine-free air? Yes. Can a non-smoker breathe that crap? Not without coughing. Simple.

As for all other state vs. federal arguments? Tradition, principles, etc., throw them out the window. What produces consequences that make my life (and those around me) better, healthier, happier, productive and free. That is my only moral litmus test.

Lee-1739823 #2.10,

Don't forget, it only takes 38 states to agree on changes to the Constitution with no input or control from the federal government.

It's called a Constitutional Convention (thank God for the wisdom of our forefathers) and only requires 34 states to convene it.

One class on economics wouldn't do it, because one class doesn't explain how derivatives work. Nor does it explain how deregulation allowed them to blossom... nor how corporate economics differs from simple cashier change and simple individual economics. Your rabid implication suggests to me that you haven't taken an economics class either. Though... I will certainly agree that everyone should be educated enough to call the corporations on their bs bluffs.

A constitutional convention means that if 2/3 of state conventions agree upon a PROPOSAL for a constitutional amendment, they can author a bill to go through the usual approval process. Even assuming that many states could do it... they'd all have to agree on the same exact draft... all it does is skip the authoring stage, states have no authority to change the national constitution. The draft then has to go through the usual process for an amendment to be made.

Lee - A guy can spend months at a time hiking the Appalachian Trail. Pretty rough duty, but it does keep you out of other kinds of trouble.

Lee:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

If a state wants to secede, it can, depending on the will of the Commander in Chief of sending in Federal troops to stop it. President Lincoln did this on his own. I am not saying it is right or wrong.

Would you fight a state's population that wanted to secede? I would fight for any state that wants to secede and become independent of a Federal nation that doesn't follow the Constitution and tries to dictates to the states. After all the Constitution was made for the individual and for State's Rights. See the 10th amendment.

President Lincoln actually set the precedent for stopping the states from seceding. There isn't anything in the Constitution that says states can not secede. The Supreme Court says they can't. It doesn't mean they can't once again take it up and change their minds.

According to the Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment

The Federalists wanted a one central Government like England had.

On the other hand, many anti-federalists supported a more republican form of government consisting of a loose confederation of sovereign states that would form an alliance only for the purpose of mutual defense. The Articles of Confederation, which governed the 13 states in national matters until 1787, when the Constitution was ratified, epitomized this form of government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was unable to levy and collect taxes on its own behalf.

Having a Central Government would be a reason to fight the Federal Troops. I can not imagine having to do what Washington would want us to do with this President in office. We would turn into a Third world country.

delfairchild - Active fantasy life you have there, my child. So the states are going to secede, the feds will just stand by and let them move on [because 10% or so think it's a good idea?] and the Supremes will OK the move. And you will personally be signing up for combat against the US military.

Uh Huh...well keep us posted as to your progres there. I know the baggers would generally have been much happier under the Articles of Confederacy, but that one hit the trashcan 213 years ago.

You guys ever wonder why people don't take you seriously? Just wondering....

Wikepedia!!!!!!!NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't allow my students to use it! I won't believe a word typed on it. Anyone can post the information on there. anyone. If you don't believe me, go to Andy Gibb...my class had me put a note on there (and I used an alias that they thought was hilarious). On here, I have to sign in. I have to give an e-mail address...on wikepedia, I just typed in what I wanted to say and it was there on the page. it was really that easy. seriously, go look and see if you see something odd on there. As of this morning, it was still there. DO NOT Trust Wikepedia. Don't do it!

tbart:

I sorry you have a hard time reading what I wrote. I would fight a dictator that was trying to destroy our Constitution just as I hope you would. I didn't say all the states were going to secede. You put some words in my mouth that weren't there. There was a comment above about not being able to secede. You can if you plan on fighting the Federal Government as I stated. It is up the Commander in Chief to send troops to the state to bring them back in line. A weak President or Federal Government just may have to allow a state to secede if they pushed it. If he were a dictator, you could bet your life I would fight with them. It has happened before in the 1860s. You don't think it could happen again?

If the Supreme Court has a majority that doesn't agree with a ruling, they can change any ruling from previous Courts when someone brings it before them. There are many examples where they did just that. You can look them up in your spare time. Just don't go to Lee's wikipedia.

FairChild - Naw, I read your words just fine. So a state that wanted to secede from the union would be doing so to prevent the destruction of the Constitution and the Prez, such as Lincoln [whether he was right or wrong] would be a dictator for using the US Army to prevent the dissolution of the Union? Do I get you right there?

And well yeah, it did happen in the 1860's, which led to some unpleasantness as I recall the history. So you think it might be a good idea to try it again? Also, I must agree that the Supremes can change case law, but once it has been accepted as a settled precedent, they do so very very seldom.

So the upshot is that if you are lining yourself up with Tom Plymouth above who apparently thinks Minnesota just might call it off on this United States thing....well my child, I doubt it. I doubt it quite a lot.

But an active fantasy life is a sign of a healthy mind. I think.

supraliminal13 #2.23,

I'd settle for a basic course in economics for everyone. Congress seems to be lacking on this subject, to a greater extent than the general public __— and that's real bad.

On the Constitutional Convention, what you forgot to mention is that once the states decide on the changes and 3/4 of the states (38) ratify the changes __— that's it. The states truly hold the power, they've just let the federal government usurp their powers over the years __— past time for them to take back their powers and significantly reduce the size and expense of the federal government.

tbaart,

really, are you truly that naive? if they can take away the right to smoke in privately owned property, you've lost your right to own property. property rights were one of the prinicpal grievances against george 3rd.

as best as memory serves me, try this on for size: "when the government tells you what you may and may not do with your property, you have lost your ownership rights. we might as well have remained subject to the tryrant george 3rd." Madison

First I never said MN should secede, I mearly was stating that they no longer have the option. The Federal Government can say or do whatever they want and the State is follow along.

Second me owning a business and allowing people to come in and smoke doesn't effect your freedoms one big, find another place to go where there is no smoking. That is called freedom.

What happens when a state or the Government tells you that you can't feed your kids fast food anymore because it effects my pocket book? will you still be ok with that law, or how about a law that says you can't cook with salt at home?

Leftist are all for taking freedom until it impacts them, then it is to late.

Tom Plymouth & Weasel - If you own a business that serves the public then you there are certain things you may not do. Your opinions on your right to run your business however you see fit are echos of the people who were on the losing side of the lunch counter boycotts in Mississippi and Alabama 40 years ago. Those folks thought they had a definite right to serve somebody or not serve them, and if the criteria was the color of their skin, well that's just how it was. So listen, most people today don't use tobacco themselves and they don't want to suck in the smoke you just exhaled either. You want to serve the public? Then you are not allowed to poison them. Same story with your employees - you are not entitled to require them to be poisoned as a condition of employment.

The public should be able to expect that they can enter any commercial establishment anywhere without being poisoned. That is called freedom. As far as the fast food and salt, we'll worry about that problem when it comes up which it has not.

As for Minnesota seceding from the Union, well MN is a state that was formed by territory acquired by the USA in the Louisiana Purchase. No, it isn't allowed to secede, why should it be? Hennepin County is not allowed to secede from the State of Minnesota either. Of course I'm really not terribly worried that you would pull that off, but on the other hand if you bloviate about a theoretical point I think it's worth consideration as something important to you and you just might try it. Unless you have sojmething more critical to do today, like mop the floor.

And specifically to Weasel - You aren't losing your right to own property any more than the lunch counters were taken away from their owners when they were de-segregated. It's a nonsensical claim.

tbart - Actually I don't want to serve the public, I want the public to buy my goods. And at the same time I would like my customers to enjoy themselves doing something that is legal to do.

If I am a vegetarian can I say I have the right to go into business and tell them they have to remove all meat from the building because some think it is a health risk?

How about people that have a peanut allergy, should all business's be required by LAW to remove all peanuts? I mean it is best for public interest right?

Shouldn't we be doing what is best for the public, not just those that think places they will never go shouldn't have smoking?

TP - So you have a bar, right? But you don't want to serve the public...well OK guess it's all about definitions. But if you serve/sell food or drink to the public there are all sorts of regulations you have to follow, almost all of which are designed to protect the health and well being of your customers. Getting rid of the smoke does that. Maybe you don't think 2nd hand smoke is a problem, OK your opinion there, but the medical establishment disagrees with you. Quite vociferously too.

The guy that can't eat peanuts should just not eat peanuts, the comparison doesn't hold water compared to the smoke somebody is getting from the next table or from you. Actually, the way to make the peanut comparison work is to say the smokers should just get their butts outside, then their habit is theirs and theirs alone.

Smokers are getting to be a smaller and smaller percentage of the population and the smaller their group is the better off we all are. The costs of their habit to their family and the population at large by way of hospital bills etc is very high. And you apparently don't think they should have to have insurance either. So who pays the bill? We all do, for a habit that is as dumb as dumb can get.

Getting the smokers out of the bars and restaurants is certainly "...doing what is best for the public."

Tom, you are missing the point...really

If I am a vegetarian can I say I have the right to go into business and tell them they have to remove all meat from the building because some think it is a health risk?

How about people that have a peanut allergy, should all business's be required by LAW to remove all peanuts? I mean it is best for public interest right?

Ok. Do the vegetarians have to ingest the meat that is available? No. Do the people with peanut allergies have to ingest peanuts? no. There are warnings, there which should be sufficient. These people are not taking the unwanted substance in because another person is eating them. Smoking is different. If a person is smoking, everyone is going to have to inhale the smoke. Second-hand smoke is bad for everyone. No one is immune to it. Non-smokers don't want to inhale the bile that you are exhaling. It is not fair to them. There is your difference. My dad has trouble with this concept. he has the mind-set that if he enhales, he is taking it directly into his lungs and none is escaping. We all know that it is not the case. When you exhale, you are filling the air with the toxins in the smoke. Your lungs clean the air and send the bad stuff out. that is what the people around you are bringing into their lungs. It is not good. It is not comparable with food, unless of course, you are force-feeding people something they don't want to ingest.

tbart - Serving the public is what the elected offials do for us. I offer a product that people can choose to buy or not. If you don't like the product I offer don't buy it. Since as you say the smoking population is shrinking if I don't chance I may fail. Which of course I should have teh freedom to do. Now if I was talking about a court house or something other public building that people don't have the option of going someplace else, then the law makes sense.

Lee-1739823 - I didn't miss the point, if YOU like the law it is OK. Or are you saying that if I put a sign on my door that says second hand smoke enter at your own risk that it would be OK? Or do you still want the law?

FYI - I don't smoke

Serving the public is what they do at my neighborhood bar. They open the door, anyone walks in gets a libation in the size & color of their choosing. If the crew coming through the door is 90% white, but there is a black guy with them, no problem. In your place, if the crowd is 90% smokers and there is one no-smoker with them...what he should just wait in the car? Nope, even if you don't see your job as serving the public, that surely is how the people who licensed you see it. You don't get to pick & choose who your customers are, they walk in, they put their money down, they get a beer. And you don't get to poison them while they drink it.

So get your butts outside.

"Serving the public is what they do at my neighborhood bar."

Really? they don't sell a good and expect payment in exchange for that good? You are using the word serving as a delivery vechicle.

Some would say that drinking is poison, others would say that just by serving liquor could lead to them to become an alcholoic, while others would say eating anything artificial is poison.

People in NY City are trying to pass a law where restaurants can't cook with salt because how bad it is for you.

I know niece can't eat at Dairy Queen because of her peanut allergy, which WILL kill her faster than any second hand smoke, but hey you probably like peanuts so that is OK.

"You don't get to pick & choose who your customers are"

I kind of do, just by what I serve. They don't get to walk in and ask for a milkshake, I don't serve milkshakes, and I don't have a Vegan menu, so if they want that they have to go someplace else. If I allowed smoking and they didn't want to be there again they would have to go some place else.

#2.7 Linda, Linda, Linda. Why have you allowed yourself to become so brainwashed with socialist rhetoric?

If you can still use your brain, please remember that most businesses are decent to their employees. We have minimum age and compensation laws. We have market forces that make employers give great benefits so they can get good employees.

People don't have to work for creepy employers. They can find another job or even choose to start their own business so they can be their own boss.

In short, your rant isn't applicable to what is happening now in this country.

Tom,

Specifically, what freedoms have you 'lost'?

Tom,

here's a link that may help you, or not.

http://www.dogpile.com/dogpile/ws/results/Web/Lost%20american%20freedoms/1/417/TopNavigation/Relevance/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true

Dahly,

You are right! The Bush admin was no friend of freedom at least in this country.

I served in the army to protect freedom for all, even the freedom to do things that I detest!

Liberals will not realize what they have done until it is too late.

TIm - I couldn't agree with you more - this whole thing -if you'll pardon the expression - is a tempest in a teapot. It seems all these protesters are worried about what's "Going to happen." and describe it as Armageddon, Marxism, Fascism etc. If we'd really been going to hell in a handbasket you'd think we'd be there by now.

Hussein

Have you ever floated on a raft on a bay. You do not feel any movement but when you wake up and hop off the water is over your head. We are floating and the water underneath is getting deep! I hope liberals swim better than I do or they are gonna drown with me!

Freedom is an illussion, a vague concept that exists in ones mind. As Americans, we never really had "Freedom" we are granted specific rights by the constitution. These rights are interpreted by the government, specifically the Judiciary. When thet were penned, they did NOT apply to "All Men", they applied to certain men. So to all you freedom fighters, get real. You never had freedom and you probably only thought you had certain rights. If everyone had Freedom, we would have complete anarchy.

With that said, it is still less restrictive here than anywhere else in the world. I understand why the Tea party exists, its not because of lost freedoms of tax dollars, it because of social fear. The face of American culture and society is changing. A Americans, we are facing competition both internally and externally.As a people, we are more divided than ever and the political powers and institutions are using these differences and fears to raid the cauffers.

It is not a liberal or conservative, or republican or democrat issues. We should not blindly accept the edicts of government on any platform. W also cannot allow the fringe elements to cloud our view of what is best for America.

My god, Steve. I never expected to see a halfway intelligent comment on these boards. The problem is, the charlatans that are politicians in this country have reduced "political discourse" down to buzzwords, platitudes and soundbites based around straw-man issues and jingoistic phrases to keep people's attention away from the real issues and what is really going on in America. Politics in this nation is truly an idiots' game, and there are many willing to play. So long as the politicians can keep the pizzing contest going on among the masses, they can continue to take their corporate payments and sell our freedoms to the highest bidder while masquerading as if they are protecting those same rights from being taken by the government.

It's nothing but a big dog-and-pony show, it's just that the average American is too embroiled in debating straw-man nonissues.

Steve - interesting points - but - in my experience America is not the freest country; not because of our form of government - it is more a function of technology. There are a million rules and a million agents of the government to enforce them. Every American is illegal all the time in some way or another - it could be going 36 in a 35 - being late on taxes - jay-walking - the list is endless.

Ron,

This is my point. We don't really have freedom, we do have opportunity to pursue certain objectives, within a fairly narrow scope. In general we must abide certain restrictions imposed legally, morally and socially. As the society diversifies, it becomes more disjointed and individuals become more "self" centered rather than societally centered. This is the premise of free market economies, the fulfillment of self. So, as people begin to focus more and more on their own welfare, the society is neglected and inequities begin to become more pronounced. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class starts to disolve because they are footing the bills. More laws are passed to "protect" the interests of special interests that generally are wealthier and more powerful, which further restrict American's opportunities.

These are not Republican or Democratic issues though we are made to think they are. Americans have lost their identity. We are fighting over scraps, ideologies, and philosphies while those in power take the lion's share. Can anyone comprehend how much a billion dollars is, but the number i tossed about as if it were pocket change.

Steve have you forgotten the money removed from the wealthy not on your side and used to purchase the loyalty of the poor. I hope you are not claiming we are on a path to more freedom.

I will agree that freedom is limited and in some cases should be. I contend however that our "limited freedom" is becoming more limited.

Today may neighbor feels squeezed, tommorrow I feel squeezed, next week maybe even a progressive feels the pinch.

Freedom lost is lost to all!

The path we are on will cull out the wealthy in opposition to the government, eliminate the middle class, and permanently fix the servant class in place!

Witchrunner, you have some really good points. The Constitution is only looked at as being in the way of the current administration.

Steve: Sorry to say that your sound a bit delusional and defeatist, not to mention nonsensical. I'm not sure what your point was. "Freedom is an illusion"? The tea party exists because of social fear? No, it is because, as you state, we have more freedom hear than anywhere else in the world. I'm not sure what social fear is, but I do know what fear of loss of my freedom means. As far as using fear to raid the "coffers" goes, only the dems are doing that. Except for the RINOs, repubs, at least conservative repubs, don't raid the public coffers, they want people to keep the money that they earned. It is total fallacy that there is no difference between repubs and dems. Only dems voted for socialized medicine and to make criminals out of those who want to accept responsibility for themselves.

The bottom line is that the tea party folks understand basic economic and human principles. Take money away from me and I won't spend as much. Take money away from the people who create jobs, and they won't create as many jobs. Create government jobs, the more money that people who don't work for the government have to pay to support those who work for the government.

The more money people have, the more freedom they have. Making someone else poorer isn't going to make me richer or feel better. This very last part is the basis for the leftist agenda. Why else do they resort to class warfare? The only solution Obama and the left have come up with is to make everyone equally poor. Sorry, but that is not one principle I'm will to fight for. But, I am certainly willing to fight against it.

Quite frankly, the best principle that makes sense is: An it harm none, do what thou will. This is why they have rules of commerce, which is the limit of the commerce clause. As long as everyone knows what the rules are and the states can't discriminate against residents of other states, then one should be free to do what they want.

I know this is rambling a bit, but the fact is that nothing I've said here is not true. Only a strong defense of what made this country great.

Witch,

You can argue philisophically about the concept of "freedom" until the end of time, and I do acknowledge that in the U.S. we enjoy certain freedoms, if you will that others do not. If you believe you are free then you are. My point is that our so called freedoms have always been curtailed by political forces throughout history. Our travel is monitored, our speech is monitored, and in some cases they are restricted in the interest of our own, or national safety. These restrictions have been put in place by Liberals, Conservatives, and every classification in between.

I use the term Social Fear to describe the phenomenon of when groups of people's behaviors and beliefs are influenced, many times irrationally by a single event and/or report. These fears may be real or manufactured. For example, 9/11 caused a high level of social fear, some legimate and some irrational. The election of a black (or half black), left leaning, educated partially in islamic environments has created a lot of social fear, some justified, some irrational. While I think that some in the Tea Party are are exp[ressing rational concerns, I believe many others are driven by irrational concerns.

I think your narrow view of the premise of the Democrats or liberals and the Republicans or conservatives is Naive. I have worked (interned) in political offices (State level)as an aide (gopher) while in college and from my experience the goal of every congressional member was to divert tax money to causes that served them. The only shrinking of government involved getting your opponents programs cut.

The coffers (thanks for the correction) are being fought over constantly by those in power regardless of political leanings. Truthfully, I have never seen a benefit tax wise over the last 25 years. In fact this year is the first year I've gotten a refund in 8 years.

As far as economic principles, the economic pie exists regardless of the size of the piece you or your neighbor has. The money gets spent no matter if it comes directly out of your pocket to the local Wal-Mart or from the family cross town on welfare. It is just moving through a different channel. That's an economic truth. Not that I agree that this is the best channel. Believe me I do not like to see 33% of my income disappear each year.

I will gladly give you that one of the greatest benefits of being a US citizen is that we can have a tea party. People can congragate in order to try to affect political and social change. Concerns and actions though must be base on rational concerns and not hype of extremists or those that seek to divide in the name of conquest. When emotion drives a cause rather than reality, there is a danger that even greater injustices will be purpotrated inthe name of fear.

Well Larry, when you are protesting the FEDERAL GOVERMENT carrying signs that are bitching about your porperty taxes, well no, it's not real clear. The people protesting apparently don't even know what or who they are protesting.

Yep...gotta reduce it down to some stupid acronym so it can appeal to an even baser audience.

It's as "simple" as the minds of people who latch on to this fringe movement.

THIS is EXACTLY what is wrong with what passes for political discourse in this nation. You need a quip, an acronym, a mascot to dumb it down so those who lack a real understanding of the issues can play along in what should be an intelligence-based process. But I guess when you admittedly DON'T STAND FOR ANYTHING, you gotta do "whatever" to garner support for your complaining club.

Shelly is dead on. Most of these clowns have no clue what they're even protesting. They just whine and complain about anything and everything, no matter how empty and hollow their whining and complaining is or how irrelevant your rants are. It's pathetic, really, that there is this movement to further dumb down the political process in this country..

Steve - last time I went to Jamaica my mate and followed a pick up truck carrying a refrigerator upright in the back with a teenage kid holding it steady for about twenty miles through curvy mountain roads. That was freedom - not very smart but certainly free. Over-population and technology erode personal freedom like waves on a seashore.

BTW These issues are beyond matters of Democrat or Republican - at times - the 2004 election comes to mind - it seems Dem/Repub is no more than rooting for the Sox or the Yanks.

But you are going to have to vote somebody in their place. Tell me, what specific policy proposals do your Tea Bag candidates have? What specific solutions will you be voting FOR in November?

Or do you just figure to just vote in anybody? And when has that ever worked?

Cast a NO VOTE and let all of the politicians know they can't be trusted. It seems that it no longer matters who we vote for. Within six months (or less), they are doing the opposite of what they tell voters they will do once elected (and it doesn't matter what office they seek.) They all get bought out by the special interests once elected.

The closing comments of the article speak too highly of the attitude of too many of the anti-establishment movement and always has. What this guy says leads to nothing other than chaos. I don't have any answers either for how to change the system, other than developing a BINDING CONTRACT requirement for all candidates to sign BEFORE their ballot petitions are accepted by their election boards. You either complete the contract or you don't get on the ballot. That contract should spell out exactly how you will conduct yourself once elected.....your position on every possible issue that might come before you, that you will NOT accept any contributions from ANY special interest group, lobbyist, etc., nor will your decisions be influenced by such special interest groups or lobbyists. It should also state that should you default on ANY term of the contract, you can immediately be removed from office and held liable in a court of law for "breach of contract."

The problem with the US, and all countries for that matter, is that we are all such diverse populations with very diverse backgrounds, ethnicity, ideology, etc. that NO government can every satisfy all of its citizens all of the time. I'm not sure that you can even satisfy some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time. We all place too many demands on our elected officials and are ourselves too hypocritical.

It's like all those people out there saying they "don't want socialized healthcare, but don't touch my Medicare", or "cut taxes and reduce the deficit" (an oxymoron in and of itself) yet complain about poor roads, bridges, and other infrastructures, schools, etc. The list goes on forever of such dichotomies.

Tim - as above...

T - Taxed
E - Enough
A - Already

You are certainly correct that voting in "anybody" does not work, as we have now seen painfully clearly.

The teabaggers don't want "change"....they want things back the way they "used to be" before a black man got in the White House and before their precious GWB was finally retired but not before he basically bankrupted our country with his fascists policies. So what kind of change do these people want? The kind of change they want would require us to go back to the turn of the last century before women's suffrage, before civil rights, before social security and medicare, before labor rights, and before the income tax when robber barons roamed the halls of congress and the average middle class person was only a twinkle in FDR's eye. Good luck teabaggers and remember to be careful what you wish for!!

I have an idea, let's trade Obama for Michael Steele, and suddenly watch the tea party go away, because this is not about skin color, it's about crap policies. It's about bankrupting the country and taxing successful people into oblivion for 'social justice' along the way. It's about forcing people who like their insurance into an exchange, where care will be determined by THE GOVERNMENT!!!

It's about how in a once free country, a bunch of lazy, uneducated, stupid people vote for a living instead of working for one. And those who worked hard to succeed for decades are suppose to sacrifice everything they have worked for to the government, for 'redistribution' to a bunch of greedy, liberals who think they are entitled to what other people worked hard to earn, simply because they didn't have the competence, initiative or work ethic to earn it themselves.

Actually since they feel so 'entitled' to other peoples' money, work ethic isn't all they are lacking, basic ethics of any kind are clearly missing.

Winterpark - Good idea!! Yup, why don't you run Michael Steele against Obama in '12 and we could see how that turns out. I've been saying that there is no greater gift that the Repubs could give Obama than to run Sister Sarah, but you have clearly moved the marker beyond where I could have imagined it would go. And maybe Mitch McConnell for VP, or is that too much to hope for?

"Read my lips No New Taxes"

or did you forget?

tbart,

The difference between Obama and Steele is that Steele is actually qualified, believes in America and doesn't need a telepromptor to talk to FIVE YEAR OLDS. One can only hope Obama doesn't need a telepromptor to talk to his own children!! But, obviously he does to talk to the child minded people that are his exceptionally stupid followers. The irony is, even if he uhms and ahs his way through those interviews it doesn't matter because those people are so brain dead, they could not tell the difference. It is the rest of us who actually travel around the world, who are completely aghast that we actually managed to have such an imbocile in office that he somehow manages to make idiot Bush, look like a flippen genius!!!

Any person who has any intellectual ability will immediately recognize that Obama's biggest accomplishments are:

A: Lesson the populist belief that Carter was our worst President.

B: Make Bush look competent in comparison

C: Make even the most corrupt people in the world, look like saints in comparison.

D: Rally the most ebicilic people in America for support (and that is saying something!)

"Steele is actually qualified, believes in America"?????? What gives you the idea that Steele is any more qualified that our President to run this country??? Hell, he sure isn't doing a good job of running the Republican party. On what grounds do you claim that he believes in American and the POTUS doesn't? As far as the teleprompter issue goes, Obama is NOT the first president to use them for their speeches. The purpose is to make sure that the speaker stays focused on the PREPARED speech and can look more directly at the audience. Working from a written text in a notebook with pages having to be turned all of the time is much more distracting and subject to errors in the "prepared" speech. It is just another example of using modern technology to get the message across. EVERY BROADCASTER on TV uses teleprompters now. I don't hear you criticizing your buddies over at FIXNEWS for using them.

"Steele is actually qualified, believes in America"?????? What gives you the idea that Steele is any more qualified that our President to run this country???

Reading, understanding and an IQ above 120.

And yes, broadcasters use teleprompters, because they are puppets and don't have any real knowledge of what they are 'reporting' on , just like our American Idoit-In-Chief. Only absolute imbeciles who can't do for themselves, trust in him! Those of us who can do for ourselves simply want to be left alone, and not be robbed blind to pay-off his embicile support group. Newsflash: Get a F%%%% job!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Point D!

Insisting on ONLY radical right wing candidates in place of true conservatives or moderates will turn out only your 20 something percent, and a landslide defeat! Cool!

and sign a conservative Constitution,

The U.S. Constitution isn't good enough anymore? I thought the T-baggers were all about the Constitution??

BTW:

The party contains the most registered voters of any political organization in the world as of 2004, with 72 million voters. Polls taken over the last decade indicate that roughly 35% of American voters self-identify as Democrats

See 6.6 above and get on the bandwagon - Michael Steele For President!!!....sure....

and sign a conservative Constitution,

You openly admit hating what this nation stands for currently (and historically) you should just leave. Clearly, from your comment here, you are NOT a patriot, and you DO NOT love this country. I wonder if you're a characterization of the average teabagger, or if you are actually on the fringe of the fringe.

You're just a common, run-of-the-mill America hater. You're not a "conservative," and you're not a teabagger. You sound more like Taliban-conservative than anything resembling American conservative.

Ken Pac, The reference to a conservative constitution was in regards to a platform for what they support. Nothing to do with the US Constitution.

That's odd, I don't remember anybody referring to a party platform as a party constitution. Don't defend the poster, the poster got fairly called out for hypocrisy.

Ron - Yep shaking in my boots over that scenario...what was it 400 people for the big DC meeting?....7000 in the Nevada desert?....gonna take over, sure you are, soon as you can find that bottle of pixie dust.

This is all about spending and when Bush was in office yes these same people were outraged, but when Obama was elected and quadrupled the debt in year they realized something had to be done, do you think any of them want to be out there protesting? these are sane rational people for them most part who just want to live their lives with minimal interference from our government. You can do whatever you want but I just don't want to have to pay for your life and if you think we don't have a problem with spending just look at Greece, that will be the US in a few short years if nothing changes.

Yeah and then all of a sudden, Obama, the straw that broke the camels back.

Actually a lot of the tea party rallies started being organized during Bush's administration. Many people from the Dems and the Repubs weren't happy with him and Obama just fueled the fire with more bailouts and stimilus packages. Someone has to pay for all of this, and it will be the American workers rich and poor...Tea Party particiapants are simply saying we need a change from the past and present administrations and get back to the roots that made us this great nation. Hard work and determination, not hand outs. Many of us believe in social programs but we want them to TEACH people to help themselves, not just hand them money so they keep coming back for more. We want people to strive to be successful but how do you do that when you are rewarding bad behavior and teaching younger generations that if you work hard and become successful all your reward for your hard work goes to someone else. Ask a student in high school (or younger) if they studied their tail off and got an A if they would give some of it to the kid who plays all day and night and recieved an F....I believe they would tell you are crazy!!!! And if you forced them too, the next test they would play all day and night too since that A wouldn't matter anymore. It's the exact same thing! How do people not understand this?! It's only being socially moral or kind when you choose to give not when it is forced.

It's "freedom" for corporations to cheat and steal. It's "freedom" for the gov't to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. It's "freedom" for the gov't to tell you what plants you can grow and smoke. It's "freedom" for the gov't to tell you who you can sleep with. It's "freedom" for the gov't to tear science out of school textbooks and replace it with myths.

Superlogi,

You are talking in macro-economic metaphors; reality is much more specific.

I bet you love all those great sounding ideas, like “smaller-government”; “less-speding”; blah, blah, blah… I bet you are also the first person to complain about the pot-hole in your street.

If by “taken care of” you mean relying on my tax dollars to provide for my needs where there is no free market incentive for the private sector to do so, (Ie. roads infrastructure, national defense, protection of the our natural resources and environment, protection from dangerous rancid meat and spoiled milk, etc…) Then yes, I guess I want to be take care of.

These people have no idea what they mean when they spit out the talking point "freedom". It's just a mantra to hate.

laurie-480643 - typical you spew the hate talk, and then blame everybody else for hatred.

I haven't read anything on this discussion saying that a certain group of people should have more or less freedom than another, everybody should be treated equal, but in your eyes that is somehow hate talk. Now you on the other hand want certain groups treated different than others and you call that non-hate?

Wow you live crazy land.

Tom - Here's a news flash yah....in case you haven't studied American History lately. In our country different people are treated differently. If this weren't the case the Equal Rights Amendment would have been ratified and become enshrined in our Constitution but guess what the same nut jobs running around now crying about "freedom" are the same ones who actively campaigned to stop the Equal Rights Amendment. Don't believe me.....look into it. So please don't get all doey eyed with me over equal treatment under the law because it's a fairy tale.

laurie-480643 - that is quite a bit of a stretch don't you think? My co-workers that go to Tea Parties are all under the age of 40 or so, not sure any of them have been around long enough to "actively campaigned to stop the Equal Rights Amendment".

Of course there are nut jobs out there, they are on both sides and the middle.

The people that want to paint with a big fat wide brush what the Tea Parties are don't have a frickin clue! They are from every walk of life, but since you don't agree with them, that makes them tea baggers, stupid, racist, haters, well Laurie, look in the mirror because what you think others are, is what you are yourself!

Is it Freedom to smoke a cigarette in a restaurant? Or is it Freedom for a non-smoker to go to restaurant that doesn't have carcinogenic 2nd hand smoke?

Freedom is allowing restaurants to decide their own smoking policies. If a restaurant wants to ban smoking, let them do it. If they don't, then fine. Nobody forces anyone to patronize any restaurant.

If by “taken care of” you mean relying on my tax dollars to provide for my needs where there is no free market incentive for the private sector to do so, (Ie. roads infrastructure, national defense, protection of the our natural resources and environment, protection from dangerous rancid meat and spoiled milk, etc…) Then yes, I guess I want to be take care of.

Problem is, that's not where most of our tax dollars are going. Instead, they pay for people who want to have kids but can't afford them to have them anyway. They pay to bail out big businesses. They pay for people buying homes that are way out of their financial reach to keep said homes. They pay for con artists that play the system and bilk the government for everything they can get (welfare, disablilty, etc) to go on vacations and and buy unnecessary materialistic crap.

Tom - I was only addressing your declaration that all people are treated equally in our society and pointing out to you that the policy of this country is to treat different people differently from each other. If you don't like the truth insulting me or trying to make me inter a hater which I am not won't make the facts of the matter go away.

It sounds like superlogi is a proud supporter of the Robber Barons of the 1800's and their 21st century counterparts....the 1% of the population who control the wealth of this country through greed, fraud/corruption, and all other forms of corporate welfare. That is where the economic morality issue comes in.

Tom and Laurie-

I attend Tea Party functions and I'm only 27. I don't "hate" anyone and understand that everyone isn't treated fair. I actually support gay marriage and abortion (early term, not late term). I make 30,000 a year after taking out loans to attend college and graduate with a degree but I'm proud of that degree and understand that it will take hard work to become successful in my career. Since I don't make a lot, I choose to donate my time and service to organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and Big Brother, Big Sisters. I began going to tea party functions because I felt that all of the bail outs were wrong. I don't feel people should be rewarded for bad decisions. I don't believe in the mortgage bailouts. Owning a house is an investment, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's hard and I hate it for people but these are all things people should think about before buying a home (it's why you shouldn't purchase a home on a 0% downpayment either). There is nothing wrong with renting if you have too. Although there needs to be unemployment benefits it should be VERY limited and if you can't find anything there should be resume classes, interviewing skill classes, etc. I'm not saying the tea party is the answer but I want to hear from people who want to stop the spending in Washington (Bush, Obama, etc all contributed to this mess). I don't "hate" on the less fortunate, I want to help by teaching them skills, not just giving them money that other people worked hard to earn.

Superlogi 9.8 silence followed by applause!

Superlogi,

Once again you are confusing your ideals and your preconceptions of history with reality.

To respond to your rambling comment about what our forefathers understood, let me give you a quick history lesson.

Much like today, our forefathers had very conflicting views about the role of the Federal Government. However, your conclusions about the reasons behind their views are drastically misguided. It never had anything to do with trying to limit the tyranny of government!!!

The conflict rose out of the difference between the Northern and Southern views on Slavery; many southerner politicians feared that the economically and numerically advantaged North would eventually use the federal government to abolish slavery in the South. So they supported strong state government and weak federal. Hamilton led the supporters of the strong federal government and Jefferson led the supporters of the weak federal government.

Don’t think for a moment that our “Forefathers” were ever of one mind on the subject and don’t think for a moment that they feared the ‘tyranny of government.’ In fact, they feared people using government to stop the tyranny that they were profiting from.

New grad I take it Matt! I realize US History is not taught anymore.

The men who wrote the Constitution missed out on the slavery and Civil War issues.

No, I am not a new grad. Ive been studying American history for almost half a century.

But please, if my facts are incorrect, enlighten us with your knowledge.

The Constitution came out of a conference intended to ammend the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution came about in part because the Articles of the confederation were to weak and likely would have resulted in States going their own way. The Constitution needed to be able to hold together the Union and at the same time protect from the abuses of a central government like the new nation had just escaped from. The problem of slavery came about a little later. Many Northern politicians were less bothered by slavery than they were by the fact that the South got more Represenatives based on the 2/3 rule. Slaves were counted toward determining the number of Represenatives but did not obviously get to vote. Nice advantage for the South, made their votes count for more.

Sad chapter but not one that impacted the provisions protecting rights from the federal government.

Tom,

Did you cut & paste that from Wiki? Nobody said anything about the Constitution. We were discussing our Forefather’s views on the role and strength of the Federal Government.

Superlogi, was stating that all our forefathers had the view that a strong federal government would lead to tyranny.

I was disagreeing with him, and stating that our “forefathers” largely disagreed about the role of the Fed. I further stated that their disagreement had nothing to do with the fear of “tyranny” and that it was a direct result of the North and South’s divergence on the policy of slavery.

I’m curious, was reading comprehension part of your education?

You sir are dead wrong! The Founding Fathers,clearly, saw the rule of the king as tyranny, that fact was stated in those words in the Declaration of Independence: " The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all haveing in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tryanny over these States"

The first attempt was The Articals of Confederation. They proved to be to weak to hold the nation together and The Constitution was the compromise. Clearly they intended the new nation to have only very limited powers to prevent another tyranny.

Slavery was, as you stated, an issue, but only a distant second to limited government!

Thanks Ted, I guess you are the night shift.

Slavery was dealt with in one little passage unfortunately it was dealt with very well.

I'm laughing. Is that what you learned in 8th grade history?

Maybe you guys should read Madison's actual notes on the Constitutional Convention or perhaps some of Jefferson's letters to Adams. There are a great many other sources of information contemporary to the times, Federalist Papers etc…

Please read some of them and then get back to me. You might find your conception of Tyranny differs greatly from that of our forefathers.

Here is a great quote I found in a famous letter from Madison to Jefferson. Madison is one of our founding fathers, and he was also a strong Federalist. During the constitutional conventions he actually advocated that the state's individual governments should be eliminated altogether. But they don't talk about that at too many TEA Party meetings where they often claim to be defending the ideals of our "Founding Fathers". Do They?

In case your history needs a refresher, Madison was the fourth president of the United States and he is often called the Father of our Constitution. Jefferson was of the opposing view. October 1787 exerted from ltr Madison to Jefferson:

As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary- 1. To prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. To prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States. 1. Without such a check in the whole over the parts, our system involves the evil of imperia in imperio. If a complete supremacy somewhere is not necessary in every society, a controuling power at least is so, by which the general authority may be defended against encroachments of the subordinate authorities, and by which the latter may be restrained from encroachments on each other.

If that doesn't prove my point that our Founding Fathers were not of the same mind when it comes to Federal power, I don't believe you are a rational enough person or intelligent enough to recognize that you are clearly and simply wrong.

Superlogi

Nope, didn't say anything about being radical,unless of course you think it is radical to want to put an end to spending that has more than doubled the national debt of all the previous 43 administrations COMBINED,but I do believe most people would call wanting to end that insanity being fiscally responsible,(or radically centrist).

Superlogi

Sorry, should have been more clear, the analogy was to a group aligning themselves to an existing political structure that comes closest to their points of view and then working from within that structure to expand their influence.

You are exactly right lisa. MSNBC is so pro progressive that it insults me. The Tea Party will need to align themselves with conservative repubs in the next election. If not, then communism will be the rule of the day. Absolute government authority.

In case the sheep don't know, General Electric owns NBC & MSNBC.

then communism will be the rule of the day & I dislike his communist agenda

Hello? 2010 is on the phone and they want you to climb out of the 1950's.

If you are all so against MSNBC, why are you even here on an NBC website (MSNBC/Newsvine.) Oh, and don't forget that GE is basically a REPUBLICAN run corporation that contributes extensively to Republican campaigns, as well as lots of money on lobbyists, seeking to keep the government from regulating their industry.

Pat - If you're so "insulted" go back to Fox Noise and saturate your brain with their propoganda and leave MSNBC to those of us who are looking for the truth and not lies and distortions.

The head of GENERAL ELECTRIC, Jeffrey Immelt, is on Obama's Economic Advisory Board. Anything else to tell me sheep??

Get your facts straight.....he's NOT on the Council of Economic Advisors.....he is one of many members of the Economic RECOVERY Advisory Board, along with Volcker:

Joining Immelt on the new board, which is chaired by former Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, are:

William H. Donaldson, Chairman, SEC (2003-2005); Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF; Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas; David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University; Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.; Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group; John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers; Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.;Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion; Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation; Anna Burger, Chair, Change to Win; Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO; Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley; Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University.

From the White House website:

The Council of Economic Advisers, an agency within the Executive Office of the President, is charged with offering the President objective economic advice on the formulation of both domestic and international economic policy. The Council bases its recommendations and analysis on economic research and empirical evidence, using the best data available to support the President in setting our nation's economic policy.

The Council is comprised of a Chair and two Members. Christina Romer currently serves as chair and Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse have been confirmed for the Council's two member positions. The Council is supported by a staff of professional senior economists, staff economists and research assistants, as well as a statistical office.

FACT?? Lisa don't need no stinking facts!! I mean, why should she start now?

Anti Trust

Since you apparently like to research I would suggest you do some drilling, real heavy research into just what Immelt and GE stand to gain from many of the presidents policies into energy conservation, wind turpine production, oil drilling, technology etc etc etc and it will take time and not cut and paste but you will be better educated. And by the way isnt GE one of those big bad terrible capitalist businesses that all the libs are so against?

I am fully aware of what GE and OTHER major corporations will gain by current and proposed environmental policies, as well as military policies. I'm also aware of what NEW industries stand to gain from these same policies, as well as the workers at all of these industries. Yes, GE IS one of those "big bad terrible capitalist businesses." That is why the ERAB has a diverse membership from several aspects of society. Immelt was selected to give voice from the manufacturing sector, UBS is there for the financial sector representation, etc. My point though was that GE is probably more of a Republican supporter than a Democratic supporter when it comes to campaign financing and lobbyists. They are also for less government regulation so that they can continue "business as usual" corporate greed. They are another of the TBTF corporations. I'd love to see ALL major corporations broken up with EACH division operating as a separate entity. That is one reason GE is now divesting itself of most of its shares in the entertainment industry. They want to get back to doing what they do best.....developing electrical and electronic products for the coming generations. If that happens to put them into the hopper for environmental projects, so be it. They will be putting many Americans back to work......as long as the federal funding requires that money to be used SOLEY for producing products in this country.

To anti-trust proponent:

here is a link to who really gets Campaign funds from GE. It seems BOTH SIDES DO as long as they are up for re-election. Namely to the tune of almost a half million dollars.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/79557-comcast-ge-ramp-up-campaing-contributions-to-key-lawmakers-ahead-of-merger-scrutiny

And here is a link to Immelt's campaign report where he gave 25% Republican, 19% Democrat and 56% to the GEPAC. He does seem to favor the Republican party in his donations.

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Jeffrey_Immelt.php

This link proves my point.....he IS a registered Republican. There is the bipartisan makeup of the ERAB.

http://www.nndb.com/people/616/000125241/

GEPAC has changed their %age ratio since 2006: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00024869&cycle=2010

Based on this information, it appears that GE as a corporation looks to see which party is in power and concentrates their giving accordingly.

To me it looks like the more people talk about the TEA party people the stronger the TEA party gets.

The main reason the Tea Party exists is because the Republicans are worthless.

The Repubs had control of both houses of congress and the presidency. Did they reduce government? Did they secure the borders? Did they reduce spending? No to all three. On the big issues - more government, open borders, more debt, both parties agree. So what's the difference?

BTW, I've been a life-long registered Republican, only because we have a two party system. We have two parties in America: the evil party and the stupid party. I'd rather vote for the stupid party than the evil party. Not much of a choice.

I fully understand why you vote for the "stupid" party! Nuff said.

And I'm sure you vote for the evil party.

Please explain what a "constitutional conservative leader" is. What part(s) of the Constitution are NOT being upheld by the current system (either party)? The Constitution does NOT spell out specifically what government can or can't do to help its citizens achieve the basis of this country as explained in the Preamble (in terms of the issues you mentioned.) It is only a general guideline. That is why from the very beginning our "leaders" had such ideological debates. Just read some of the writings of those founding fathers. The Federalist papers and their counterparts can be quite revealing as to what those leaders thought government should and shouldn't do. The Constitution was a "compromise" document of those divergent ideologies.

If the programs you mention were so against the Constitution, then they would have all been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Feel free to read these "notes" if the 14 pages are too much. Very interesting reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

most important stretch from the constitution - limited government

Progressive Supreme Court Justices (FDR's 4 terms) redefined the constitution as a "living document." Which it certainly is not, if you believe ion the rule of law.

SHane..OBAMA is the corporate pol...look how is Health care refrom HELPS insurance companies and provides them with MILLIONS Of new customers...

Never said he wasn't....corporate interests no longer interest the masses. We are smarter than that!!!!

So don't complain if you see more trouble heading our way in the future, if you haven't complained about what had already happened before it happened? Wher does that make any sense?

Paige..

I dont reemmeber all the demsin the 90's..... complaining when CLINTON DEREGULATED Banking and Financial services..

Your the typical DEM who think GW deregulated the BANKS...

To bad it was CLINTON in 1999 who signed the law deregulating banking and financial services..

As far as the war in IRAQ..... IF dems didnt want war in IRAQ the DEM CONTROLLED SENATE with DEM SENATOR TOM DASCHLE as majority leader shouldnt have voted for it....

No one said IRAQ behind 911...

Was Saddam a terrorist sponsor? YES..... How do I KNow?

Clinton admin put SADDAMS iraq on the list of Terrorist sponsor nations...

Before 911 biggest TERRORIST killed of americans was a group lead by ABU NIDAL....ABU NIDAL was based in IRAQ

Saddam could have made CHEMICAL WMD in a just a few months....HOw do I know? UN report on his WMD program said so.

SO keep complaining about GW.... ITS OBAMA economy NOW...

ITs OBAMA who promised spending 1 trillion on stiumulus would keep unemployment at 8%..

ITs obama who GAVE Big health insurance the biggest GOVT WELFARE of all time when he signed law mandating people buy thier product..

Its obama who spent 8 billion on GREEN jobs with Weatherization program and got a grand total of a couple of hundred jobs out of this 8 billion dollar jobs bill...

According to last report 8 billion dollar obama green jobs weatherization program created a grand total of ....47 jobs in CA...HAHAHA.

8 Billion dollars and in our largest state by population created 47 jobs!...you freaking kidding me!

BTW when clinton took OFFICE in han 1993 Bush sr, left an Economy that was growing at over 4% and had been growing for over a year..

When clinton left office in JAN 2001, the stock market bubble burst in spring of 2000, California was experiencing BLACK OUTS, and the economy was limping along at 1% growth...for clintons last quarter in office.

Once again...BILLIONS SPENT on his programs.....BILLIONS Spent in "health reform"....its all OBAMAS NOW..

BY the way GW never used the FED LAW to force anyone to buy anything from a private company...OBAMA HAS

YEP obama sure showed those mean old HELATH INSURANCE COMPANIES...by using the FED GOVT to FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY THEIR PRODUCT...

HAHAH and all you suckers just continue to swallow like a clinton white house intern..

when CLINTON DEREGULATED Banking and Financial services..
Your the typical DEM who think GW deregulated the BANKS...

It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, introduced by Republicans that deregulated banking, allowing the inevitable outcome... a few at the top reap billion$ while most suffer the losses.

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

The remainder of your post was ignored based on the fact that you started it off with a lie.

Ken..

Who signed the Bill...making it a LAW?

CLINTON..

Whose ADMIN supported the bill working to get bipartisan majority of 90 votes including all of the dem leadership and vast majority of the dems in the senate .....the Clinton admin.

With out Clintons signature...its not a law... Which President deregulated banking and financial services sector....Bill CLinton..

So how did I lie?>

I always find it FUNNY how for DEMS...WELFARE reform , passed by GOP congress and signed by CLINTON...is CLINTONS doing .

but some how banking deregulation passed by GOP congress and signed by CLINTON...is not CLINTONS doing

I always find it funny how GOP CONGRESS Balanced the budget and CLINTON signed it and its CLINTON who gets credit for balanced budget..

Just like a DEM CONTROLLED SENATE approved the war in IRAQ and the PATRIOT ACT....but somehow to dems both war and Patriot act...are all GW doing..

You cant havnt both ways...when a PRESIDENT SIGNS a bill or law..it becomes his..

Sorry...BILL CLINTON DEREGULATED BANKING and FINANCIAL services in 1999

Your unwillingness to accept REALITY..doesn't make reality a lie..

So your argument is that because nothing was done sooner that nothing should be done now.

How do people get through their daily lives with such logic?

Nope the pre 1999 regulations should be returned..

When OBAMA proposes such a thing I will support it..

The actual damaging deregulation was 2003...

Funny the ones DEMS always talk about is the repeal of the glass steagal act which accord in 1999..

B

Dave, You are so right. The Progressives are going to be elected again in November. I wouldn't even bother to go out and vote if I were you. Just stay home. The Dems will have so much support, it'll be a landslide victory for them. LOL

Dave - You are SPOT on my friend. Good analysis.

Dave ..

we already have an "american Mao"....In Obama..

Sorry OBAMA cult members mindlessly chanting "yes we can", whiel demanding the hard earned MONEY of others...... is far scarier then a pissed of TAX payer tired of his money going to waste in more failed govt programs..

Dave, thats what the dums did when they voted for this chicago crook! muslim obama and his non tax paying cabinet. Thats what happens when you let idiots vote.

Hey Dave .. an american (maybe) Hitler has taken hold..Obama... The people in the Tea Party do not in any way respresent Fox News. You blab on with no facts. Every thing Fox reports in far closer to truth then the radical agenda of the government news agencies ABC, NBC,CBS, MSNBC, CNN ... yellow journalism never before seen in America.

Metal Guitarist,

You are funny. Arrest and punish people because they protest? You really have to be joking. I sure hope that isn't how you really feel.

I'm surprised a "metal guitarist" found his way online.

Isn't that funny, Wallet? You called people like myself terrorist sympathizers when we protested against the Iraq War. The only problem was that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01.

So were you a terrorist sympathizer?

You mean the WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets that fought to keep your dumbass safe? Is that the people you are talking about? Or, are you talking about the chicago clown that is our crook in chief along with his two bit SEIU union thugs, ACORN, and black panther party? I hope you are a younger person because you are about to find out how stupid you were for voting for this socialist that is your president.

Hey you sure your parents aren't one of them?

World War II was the GOOD war. Korea was a cooperative effort. Vietnam was wrong. The war in Iraq was based on lies.

Metal -

So you admit to using your right to voice opposition to policy in public and then turn around and condemn others as traitors when they do the exact same thing?

If you decide to vote, for anything, please try to think it through a little more then you thought your original comment through. The scary thing is, many legislators are as short sighted as you.

I blame the Tea Party for not being effective enough. Join the National Strike from April 15-19...and put your money where your mouth is.

Democrats=Republicans=Corporate Welware

Cindy - Where were the Teabaggers when GWB was destroying this country???? Nowhere. They have no credibility. They are protesting because a black man is president and for some reason they hate the thought of that.

You all have worn out your race cards when Obama was first elected. The DNC had better find something a little better then that for your new talking point.

Here we go again with liberal Laurie. Try making some valid points instead of using the GWB excuse. Things are 100 times worse now than they were under GWB. Obama has exploded the deficit far beyond what it was under GWB. Government is growing out of control. This has nothing to do with a black man in the White House. Jimmy carter was a white man and did the same thing that Obama is doing now. Obama has just put the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton plans on steroids and he has a democratic majority to push his ultra liberal agenda. That's the issue.

Here you go Laurie. Here's a nice list of lies and broken promises from your man Obummer. Not matter if he's black or white these are still lies and broken promises.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI4MjQ3Mzk4MWJkNDkwNWZlYzcwNDA3NmQyNmIxYmI=

Still not willing to check the source of your discontent are you??? Still not willing to see this for what is it. If you were so concerned about out of control gov't spending then where were you all when GWB was waging war, cutting taxes and giving away more gov't programs by borrowing and adding to the deficit. Remember he came into office with a surplus. Why no crys of protest then. Unfortunately, you are all so hoplelessly hypocritical that you won't even address the question or the issue. Your agenda is obvious.

Laurie, your a little confused. During GWB last term in office the democrats controlled congress. The left forgets that one real quick so I thought I would point that out. It was Barny F and Chris D that let Fannie and Freddie get out of control. Bush questioned it and they're response was don't worry it's under control. Well, it turns out it wasn't under control at all. It was the main source of the housing collapse and that one falls on the democrats.

The spending was nowhere near what it is now with Obama. Also, we just got attached on 911 so the people were ok with the wars waging. Only the left wing flag burning anti-war group was against the wars and they protested GWB calling him everything from Hittler to the devil.

So, get your facts straight before you start coming out here on the attack. I also noticed that you decided not to comment on the list of lies and broken promises from Obama. I guess it's hard to argue with the truth.

Funny thing is when Bill Clinton came into office the Dem/Liberals were calling him the first Black President, but now since there is a man who looks black. Were all racists if we dont like what he doing. I did not like Bill and I sure dont like Obama. So I guess you will call me a racist since, I did not like the first black President and now I dont like the second one. Give me a brake libs.

Joe patriot.... the housing collapse falls squarely on Bush's self appointed advisors who pushed for the deregulation if anything. Just because somebody was persuaded to pass doesn't mean the blame is off the authors who stood to gain directly. Bush is justifiably blamed.

I will give Bush some blame but you have to admit that the democrats are just as much to blame with the "Every one must get a home" idea. Dodd and Frank controlled Fannie and Fredie. There's a lot of blame to go around I'm sure. You can't say that it falls squarely on Bush. That's just not true. Frank and Dodd had the reins on Fannie and Freddie and pushed for loans to low income families so they could realize the American dream.

They are losing the freedom to dupe at will. Losing the freedom to keep corporate tyranny in the dark. Losing the freedom to paticipate in the government corporate welfare project. Losing the freedom to be self-deluded.

So it is not mandated to buy insurance? Just asking. The way you explained the way this health care program will be run is that people will not have to buy into and will not have any sort of penalty? Like I said, just asking.

Adding an obligation is in NO WAY the same thing as taking away a freedom. You have particular freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights. Particular individual freedoms.

Please post which one of these have been lost.

Johndevine,

I'm not a member of the tea party, but I have answer for your question about freedoms that have been taken away... Boy oh boy, where to even start?

Freedom of speech rights have not been officially taken away but we are in danger of losing them - McCain/Feingold campaign finance law was a big detriment to free speech, as is the much talked about fairness doctorine,

I no longer have the right to bear arms as intended by our founding fathers. I cannot carry a concealed firearm in many areas. I cannot legally purchase or possess certain firearms or ammunition.

Property rights have been trampled in this country. Gov is abusing the power of eminent domain to confiscate private property to increase their tax base, giving it away as an incentive to businesses, etc... The courts have also allowed a special "sneak and peek" warrant which allows the gov to enter your home or place of business without telling you, they only have to notify you that the warrant was executed after their investigation is complete, which can take months or years.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th amendment has been violated over and over and over again by the federal gov. According to the Constitution, the fed gov had no right to create welfare programs, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, healthcare, etc...

You want more? The gov has unconstitutionally made it illegal for me to start my own mail service, start my own passenger railroad, build structures on privately owned lands that have been deemed "environmentally endangered". In many cases, property owners are restricted from cutting down a tree, building a pond, grading a slope, etc...

Are these specific enough examples?

No, they are not specific at all, they are vague and only your interpretation.

For instance, you claim that entitlement programs are in violation of the 10th amendment, when the Supreme Court has ruled that under the general welfare clause, they are perfectly constitutional.

And whether you like it or not, emminent domain is the law and constitutional.

You provided a laundry list of personal grievances, but nowhere are you showing a constitutional right lost.

You are fearful that they MAY be, and projecting that into your perception of what IS.

McCain/Feingold campaign finance law was a big detriment to free speech

Not to worry now that SCOTUS has granted "personhood" to corporations to spend all the money they wish on "free speech".

I cannot carry a concealed firearm in many areas.

You're right. I'd rather NOT have you roaming the halls of my local high school with a gun.

Property rights have been trampled in this country

You can't own property, you sort of "lease" it from the earth while you're here.

the fed gov had no right to create welfare programs, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, healthcare

Oh please...

It is too bad our forefathers had no concept of some of the types of weapons that would later be developed. By your logic, you should be able to buy/sell/manufacture your own bombs (including nuclear) and all other types of weapons, just because our founding fathers weren't more specific on their definition of "bear arms." Remember, back then they were muskets and rifles that had to be loaded with powder and a single shot. They had no concept of the power of the semi- and automatic weaponry of today, nor any of the other wmd's that you seek to be able to own and carry under the 2nd Amendment.

I personally believe that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted more guardedly along the original concepts of "arms."

You could spend the whole afternoon covering the many ways in which the healthcare takeover is unconstitutional. Of course the lamestream media will only have 'experts' on who are carefully vetted to spew crap about how it's within the fed's power to do whatever they want to whomever they want. It's not. And the exceptionally stupid will continue to fall for that garbage. Unfortunatley, that group seems to be growing at an alarming rate.

The rest of us can understand the tenth ammendment and have actually bothered to read writings by our founders, to understand clearly the Constitution and the rights it was intended to protect.

But back to 'healthcare'... the government will decide which insurance plans 'qualify' for the exchange. They will do this by deciding what will be covered for people and what won't. They will then only approve plans from providers who agree to comply with the government terms for coverage. Therefore, your Dr. will no longer be able to make decisions about your care with you, without first consulting the 'government's guidelines' they will be forced to follow if they are to be reimbursed, or be able to practice at all. And our illustrious leaders are forcing everyone to be on an exchange plan within five years or less. So for those who will be 'subsidized' who have no insurance, who will get routine care, for free, it is probably an okay deal, unless you need extraordinary care. For everyone else who would get extraordinary care if you needed it, who already had good insurance, you will pay more, get less and have much longer waiting times to be seen.

Of course the bottom line is that government will decide what healthcare you can have, and you have NO CHOICE but comply, die or go to jail. Unbelievable! This in America, the land of the 'free'.

I will vote for anyone who will repeal this steaming pile of excrement bill! And I will donate generously to those who support repeal, for whom I cannnot vote. I unfortunately will pull money from supporting cancer, leukemia, children's hospitals, homeless shelters, battered womens' programs, planned parenthood, fire fighters, poilice, etc... for this year, to support candidates who will vote for us to regain our freedom.

I hope other patriots will do the same.

So you prefer to let the insurance companies make those decisions for you and your physician, while charging you exorbitant rates for the "service?" That is what happens under the old system, and still happens until the new laws fully take effect. Oh, and don't forget, IF you have employer sponsored insurance coverage, the employer and the insurance companies are making those decisions for you.....the employer looking for the cheapest policy they can get and the insurance company looking for the most profit they can get. The only way that you and your primary caregiver have any real say in your healthcare options is when you make financial terms directly with that caregiver and you pay him/her out of your own pocket. Greedy caregivers (like greedy insurance companies) won't allow you to have that option (HMO caregivers, etc.) Your best bet is to find a caregiver who has his/her own private practice with no affiliation with other caregivers, hospitals, etc. They might then consider payment options to cover your healthcare.

Clarke you can play semantics all you wish. If you were allowed the freedom to do something today and tommorrow a law is passed that bans that practice, you have lost freedom. Some regulation of freedom is necessary in a society. Different people have a different threshold for what level of government intrusion in their lives is acceptable. What is happening is as each administration continues to carve out larger and larger spheres of influence for the government is the number of people who feel infringed is growing. If the group that feels infringed gets large enough in a "Represenative Democracy" the represenatives are changed and the course is changed. Of course as seen in Venezuela "freedom" sometimes is lost when the people are asleep or caught up in a euphoric trance!

anti-

I have never once had the insurance company make a decision for me; you are falling for the Obama drone messaging. I go to the doctor, we discuss a treatment option, I get said treatment and my insurance company gets billed. I pay what isn't covered. The insurance company has zero say in my treatments. But in socialized medicine, the doctor will have to get approval from the government, in order to treat me moving forward and if the government says 'no', I won't be able to get the treatment. Why do you think people come here when they need life saving treatments they can't get elsewhere?

Don't fall for the rhetoric. The government is just getting its greedy paws on another 1/5 of our economy so it can take it over, and all of the money that goes with it, then start rationing care, while pillaging the system.

After i stopped laughing at ur post i realized that we are the same...except you have that right wing craziness slant that makes any and all of your arguments silly and unfounded.

Please provide direct evidence of

The progressives are coming undone and beating up American citizens with bats, calling black Americans the N word and boy, biting off fingers of American citizens

I see evidence daily of progressive toons coming undone here on NewsWhine.

Shane,

It is documented and video taped. It is fact. I do not have to prove it, it is there for the world to see. Do you live under a rock?

In addition majority of Americans identify with the conservative priniciples than the Progressive Communist manifesto eminating from the Oval Office by the temporary inhabitant.

Barry's agenda is to make a permanent low class dependent upon them. Also Michelle is on tape saying when they went back to Africa Barrack's home country they both took HIV AIDES test. Notice she said Barry's home country. Michelle was the guest speaker at a homosexual, Lesbian, Transsexual meeting when she said this.

Personally, I would just like to hear some truth coming from the District of Corruption gang pretending to be public servants which I think we feed pretty well, if they can have parties, eat Wagu beef and buy $6,000 pocketbooks while flying around jetsetting on the hardworking middle class's sweat and hard work.

homosexual, Lesbian, Transsexual meeting when she said this. LOL

Would that be the HLT group? LMAO Please, refrain from speaking of things you obviously know nothing of.

Shellie,

I listened to part of Michelle's speech. It is a free country I can speak about anything. I do not know the name of the group but I do know what Michelle said and obviously I know that. If you are intolerant of people reporting facts, I can not help you with that. LMAO, TLP, LOL, ZRW, I have no idea what anything other than LOL means so since you are so fond of letters, I threw some together for you. I aim to please.

Ginger ... who are you NOT a victim of?

I don't understand your question? I do hate the poor being used as merchandise and I spent the better part of the my life advocating for the poor. They are manipulated by the Progressives who have always had such low expectations for them and actually were the KKK, fueling hate. They made a cottage industry out of victimhood and became millionaires off of it while creating it. All that the rest of America has bent over backwards to help them.

Yep, Progressives are the real source of the world's problem, excluding of course Lucifer.

S. Brown...

Silent majority is a good comparison.

Maybe you should share this valuable information with the RNC and the FBI.

I'm sure they would be glad to know.

Clarke - I am not a birther, but Michelle did say that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28HUHyFEuXY

I'm guessing that we were not expected to take what she said as literal but rather as symbolic. Wait a minute, that would actually be worse wouldn't it? Maybe she didn't really mean and was just pandering to folks from Kenya. Nah, that sounds just as bad.

Oh give me a minute I'll think of something. I got it. She was just lying because she thought it would sound good. No harm in that if you are the President or the president's wife according to the democratic party.

Thomas...predictable obamabot clarkey is always on here supporting the socialists agenda...

if he saw obama pushing a 90 year old woman in the Potomac, he'd say he was teaching her to swim...:)

At this point I could not care less where Barry was born, the point is what a horrible president he is, his lack of qualifications, his actions doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done to protect America and Americans.

It is as if he is inviting an attack on America. If so, that would be the action of a person who really really hates America and has no pride in her accomplishments.

I have confidence in the American people that they are smart enough to make up their own minds even if the Federal Gov't does not think so. Then vote accordingly at the ballot box.

A liberal tactic as long as I can remember has been instigate, instigate, instigate.

Barry says I am called a socialist but no one can explain why? huh? Maybe he should ask Al Sharpton and the New York Times to explain why, they are entities in Barry's corner.

Then the audio tape with Michelle saying that HIV is not getting attention because of homophobia. huh? Talk about all the Progressive's conspiracy theories, every time I turn around there is some other crisis everywhere that is the fault of America. How ridiculous.

In addition the Conservative ideologies is not in the embryonic stage, it was at the conception of America and from her beginning.

Mainstreaming Marx, Mao, socialism, communism does not make it right. It is still what it is, slavery.

You must be very rich if you're seeing an increase in your taxes, and even then, you should know the US pays the lowest amount in taxes of any Western Nation. I'm curious though, who do you think should pay for that very expensive Iraq war?

Rudy...

why didnt the dems who controlled the SENATE when the war was voted on.....pay for it.

isnt congress job to spend money and pay for the things they pass?

They controlled the Senate when the war was voted on? Really? At any rate, answer the question: who do you think should pay for that war?

You are ignorant if you have not seen taxes increase. In Washington state, the easiest one to point at is "Car tab tax". We successfully implemented a $30.00 car tab tax and today that car tab tax is anywhere between $60.00 to over $100.00. The people said $30.00!!! and the politicians keep bumping the taxes up via some other definition to be able to get around this hardline.

Oh, I cannot build an 8' x 8' shed in my backyard without getting approval from the City. Yes, I have plenty of room to have the shed. Freedoms eroded!!! Certainly they are being eroded and, again, if you are unaware of it, you are a party line person and ignorant.

Yes dems controlled the SENATE when IRAQ war voted on...DEMS controlled 1 or both houses f congress for almost half of GW time in office.

OBAMA spent more in 1st year on STIUMULUS and BAIL OUT OF GM then entire 8 year IRAQ was Cost

WHo suppose to pay for STIMULUS, and GM bail out?

and dont even get me started on the PHONEY accounting that was used to get to OBAMA 900 billion figure for his health care reform plan..

OBAMA between Stimulus plan, GM bail out and his health care reform SPENT MORE IN 1 YEAR...then entire 8 years cost for war on terror and IRAQ..

Difference is WAR in IRAQ will end.....COSTS for Health care reforom if not repealed....NEVER end.

War in IRAQ will be paid for by the american people..

Rudy

I am far from rich and my property tax just went up 24%. When the Bush tax cut expires my taxes will go up again. I pay a multitude of fees that are in effect taxes. all of which are going up. Sale tax went up. Some states are adding taxes on soda etc... The taxes the government put on for healthcare will ultimately be paid by the people. Soon to come the VAT.

We will not be taxed less than Europe since we are now becoming Europe.

Uh..No they didn't. Try again, Charger. In fact, why do don't you back it up with proof. I'll wait. Now, answer my question: who should pay for that very expensive Iraq war? Why is this question so hard for you to answer?

Rudy the Dems voted for the war! Control of Congress played no role. Do you see the Dems ending the wars now?

Does spending on the war justify more uncontrolled spending?

Rudy pay your own way and stay out of my pocket. I earned what I have. Go earn your own.

Who should pay for the war, Tom?

Rudy,

in May of 2001...Republican Jim Jeffords switches to voting with the DEMS in the US SENATE..giving DEMS Control of the senate.

THis is how TIME MAGAZINE reported Jeffords move giving DEMS SENATE MAJORITY in MAY OF 2001

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,127919,00.html

THis is how CNN reported the jeffords defection and it giving DEMS control of the US SENATE.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/25/senate.gop.fallout/

So for So for almost ALL of GW first 2 years in office..including when the VOTE for IRAQ war took place Dems controlled the US SENATE..

Dems kept control of the t US SENATE until JAN of 2003...when as the result of the midterm elections in 2002 GOP took back the US Senate.

THen GOP last control of bouth houses of congress as a result of 2006 election..DEMS took control of both houses of congress in JAN of 2007 and controlled them until GW left office in JAN of 2001

SO lets do the math...

may of 2001 to JAN of 2003 dems controlled the senate..thats 20 months, over a year and half.

Dems controlled both houses of congress for last 2 years of GW time in office, thats 24 monthes.

so for 44 monthes, nearly 4 years of GW 8 years in office..DEMS controlled 1 of or both of the houses of congress...

Anything else you want me to to explain to you?

so 20 months

SO as I said DEMS controlled 1 or both houses of congress for nearly 4 years of GW 8 years in office..

Hey Tom, you're referring to state taxes. My taxes also went up in my state, and that was because of a Republican governor.

Tis is How CNN reported the IRAQ war resolution vote..

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

"Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Notice how CNN referes to DEM SENATOR DASCHLE as the the "MAJORITY LEADER"because the dems controlled the SENATE when the vote was taken..

Rudy,

your like most DEMS your just ignorant of the facts....you just swallow the talking points and repeat what your told..

Educate your self....and I wouldnt have to educate you.

DAMN,

I spend so much time educating liberals and dems..I should pay NEA due.

You said Dems controlled the senate. So I am going to stick with that. Here are the facts:

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

So, as you can see, neither side really controlled the Senate. We have seen the obvious in this in that in the senate practically a super majority of 60 seats must exist for anyone to control the Senate.

During the Iraq war vote, which was in 2002 and not 2001, 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent voted against the War in Iraq.

Rudy who should pay for health care reform?

Ah yes, more rantings about "taxation without representation" from a thread starter who has no clue what the phrase even meant. You DO have representation, you can vote and elected officials based on your vote are the ones who pass laws. That is representation. The colonials had no representation, they didn't have a single representative in parliament either through vote or appointment.

Actually chargerguy, the health care plan will save money. The cost for the war in Iraq was a total waste that will never be recovered. Huge difference.

Acting like people are in YOUR pocket is rather circular. I suppose you'd like to not pay your taxes so that everyone else needs to pay more while you still get the pleasure of living in this country? That'd be putting your hands in everyone else's pocket.

Charger, answer my question: who should pay for the Iraq war?

Oh, and btw, in 2002 the House of Representatives was also in Republican control. But that is neither here or there when it comes to the question you keep avoiding.

Rudy I never said the HOUSE was in GOP control in 2002 so what your point

Dems controlled the US senate from JUN 2001 on..

bottom line'

So like I said DEMS HAD control of the US SENATE when the WAR in IRAQ was voted on...

your need to deny this FACT says much..

Your entitled to your own opinion..not your own facts.

FACT DEM SENATOR TOM DASCHLE was the dem MAJORITRY LEADER..when the war in IRAQ was voted on..

Notice how his title is.."MAJORITY LEADER"....geez...

pull your head out..

No, the dems didn't control the senate in June of 2001. They only had 50 seats, and as I have already said, to have control would require 60 seats. But that is neither here or there. Who should have to pay for that Iraq war? Why can't you answer that question?

I'm curious, Charger, why is it important to you who had a majority (by 1 seat) in the Senate when it comes to answering the question as to who should pay for the Iraq war? Didn't you think the war was justified?

Rudy..

psst.. If the dems had 50 seats..

GOP only had 49

and there was 1 indpendant..

and the indpendant votes with the dems for the majority leaders and other leadership positions.

Dems have a 51-49 majority

thats why DEM SENATOR TOM DASCHLE was the MAJORITY LEADER

You dont need 60 seats to control the senate..

you need 60 to break filibusters.

All thats needed to "Control" the senate is a simple majority.

Rudy... I guesss CNN, TIME magazine, CSPAN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NY TIMES, LA TIMES...all just wrong when they reported in juan 2001 that jeffords switch gave DEMS control of the senate..

Yep CNN, CSPAN, ABC, NBC, TIME MAGAINZE all wrong...and RUDY is right..

HAHAHAHHAHAHA

Your grasping..

You're grasping!! You obviously think that blaming the democrats, who by way were the only ones who voted against the war except for 1 republican and 1 independent, somehow makes it so you don't have to answer the question as to who should pay for that expensive war. You did support the war, didn't you?

And btw, Charger, I remember when it came time to vote that Limbaugh and Hannity were practically screaming that if the democrats vote against the war in Iraq it would be political suicide and that they would be seen as supporting terrorism. How you conveniently want to forget all the rhetoric.

Rudy the Dems voted for the war and we all are paying for it. My state is controlled by Democrats. A major portion of my state tax increase is driven by Federal mandates that are not paid for. I will not waste any more of my time on your childish debate skills!

When you can't asnwer a question, take your ball and go home.

Rudy so your saying JOE BIDEN and HILLARY CLINTO vote ..the way Hannity and Rush tell them to?

Rudy.. I stated a FACT... DEMS controlled the US senate when the WAR in iraq was approved..

I stated another FACT BIDEN Reid and Hillary all voted for it..

I already answered the who is going ot pay for the wars question...the american people..

No, they voted the way the intelligence supposedly indicated that they should. A lie we all know who supplied.

Supra..

being wrong is not a "lie"

The OBAMA admin said if its 1 trillion stimulus bill was passed unemployment wouldnt go above 8%.....

now that unemployment is 9.7% did OBAMA ADMIN lie or where they just wrong?

Was it a lie when OBAMA promised to not use presidential signing statments during the campaign.....then used one this JULY?...

Being wrong about WMD is not a lie.... its being wrong..

BY the way we had an election in 2004 years after NO WMD in IRAQ was KNOWN.....GW won...so much for the american people caring about no wmd..

Being wrong is a lie when you know you are wrong when you say it. And if people are unable to know the difference, that is what I call the Big Lie.

No evidence GW ADMIN did not think SADDAM had wmd..

An April 5, 2010 Gallup Poll shows the Tea Party is made up of: 43% Independents, 8% Democrats and, 49% Republicans. The first important point to note is that the majority (51%) of the group is NOT Republican. The second important fact to note is the significant (and growing) percentage of Independents because Independents decide elections. The growing dissatisfaction - if not distrust - of Independents in the President, Congress and the Senate combined with their growing desire to tilt back towards conservative value-based policies is certainly a concern for those on the left (both those currently elected and those who support them). Based upon empirical evidence, I believe this to be the primary driver behind most of the negative Tea Party (mis)representation.

In short, the Tea Party is a tri-partisan organization with a common/unifying beliefs that: 1) those in power are distorting/misrepresenting facts to justify their policies, 2) that they are making decisions/policy that will harm the country and 3) those currently in power are not representing the will of the American people - that they are in fact ignoring the desires of the people. I believe the term is 'taxation without representation'. The left cannot argue their positions on merit so they demonize/minimize any opposition. I am so sad to find that MSNBC does not seem to be covering things fairly - very sad indeed. I guess this explains MSNBC ratings. People are starving for the truth.

Rudy,

It is none of your business if Bevus is rich. If he is, it would be because he worked hard and sacrificed his time and energies for. Americans believe if you don't work, you don't eat.

Rudy, the question, "who should pay for the war is idiotic!!! Your stance is because America was attacked by cowardly islamic embicilic national ethnic hating brainwashed youths who were tricked by Islamic clerics and Mohammed to throw away their lives in self suicide and mass murder where no one remembers even what their names were (except maybe their mothers) murdering over 3,000 American civilians many who were women and children. So because of this, you think that the tyranny of social justice is called for and taxing the hard working Americans and their unborn children to death is the way to go??? That is insanity!

George Washington and Ronald Reagen would laugh at your stance.

#24.1 "You must be very rich if you're seeing an increase in your taxes, and even then, you should know the US pays the lowest amount in taxes of any Western Nation. I'm curious though, who do you think should pay for that very expensive Iraq war?"

My son has been complaining about a dramatic increase in his taxes and he only makes about $100K a year. I'm a retiree with a fixed income and for what I report in income, my taxes are high, about 20%. I don't call that low.

Another thing, this country's business taxes are the second highest in the western world; that's why so many of our businesses are moving overseas and taking their jobs with them.

Did you know that Congress is talking about a Value Added Tax (VAT) of about 20%? This is a Federal sales tax that will be added onto everything we buy. That tax on top of our regular taxes will make our tax rate much higher.

Can't figure out why Congress doesn't realize that the real problem is their excessive spending. Maybe they're not as smart as they think they are.

Carlos, To sum it up very simply the country is divided into two parts. One part wants to keep what they earn for themselves and the other part feels they are entitled to a share of the others earnings. Its as simple as that.

Carlos,

I think you may have just defined the beliefs of many associated with the Tea Party movement.

I know exactly what the tea party wants.

1. S T O P spending money we do not have!

2. Stop taking our freedom to choose away!

3. Stop taxing us into a third world country!

The tea party is not a republican organization.

The tea party welcomes all people who care about the future of this country.

Stop destroying our nation with your idiotic ideas and unaffordable taxes!

Stop destroying our nation with your idiotic ideas and unaffordable taxes!

Like Off shoring jobs, deregulation, and trickle down economics are viable alternatives?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Government of by and for the corporations worked so well! Then after it failed, they bailed them out!

"Republican Values" in practice

(Pssst just look at those 'tea bag' canidates, they all have 'R' next to their name)

Who controled the senate during the Iraq vote is irrelivant...

Only the POTUS can order troop deployments...

Seperation of powers....

The POTUS then had access to all the information, and he CHOSE to ignore reports that differed from his policy goals.....

Congress has the constitutial authority and duty to declare WAR.... not authorize troop deployments.. you so called returd 'constitutionalists'

The Obama administration is starting to look more like the old versions of stallin and lenin and have no grasp on freedom or self respect. The far left do not want people who can stand on their own feet they want weak little lemmings to follow them over the cliff of stupidity.