The writer misuses the term neo-conservative. What an idiot....
LOL, the author supports leaving the bad guys alone.
That worked out so well on Christmas, didn’t it?
*snort*
So what is this guys game?
He’s obviously NOT a supporter of the Tea Party.
Wonder if he’s a liberal pretending to be a libertarian?
Naah, they wouldn’t do that to try and fracture the Tea Party that is scaring them so badly, would they?
They could never get the ball rolling so now they have to Alinski the TP movement, Right.
Just more sour grapes from someone who beleives that Gitmo is only about torture.
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_029.mp3
Where’s my barf alert, not to mention my barf bag?
Author (not OP Freeper 2ndDivisionVet) is a MORON, and HE means NOTHING!
And that's a bad thing?
First, the Tea Parties are gatherings . . . tea parties. It’s not a Tea Party like the Republicans and Democrats are a party. People are always trying to hijack things so they can lead them.
Second, libertarians might be 10% of the population. Maybe 20%. But I’m pretty confident they aren’t 30%. Which means they need to pick some allies and stop whining about them. Same goes for all the labels we plaster on our diverse coalition of voters for “conservative” candidates “they” all need allies. The “religious right,” the “neo-cons,” the “populists,” the “paleo-cons,” the “RINO’s,” the “Rockefeller Republicans” the . . .
whatever . . .
are not a majority and need to work together.
A politician cannot be a Tea Party nominee as there is no political party named “Tea Party”, nor should there be in my opinion. But those who consider themselves as “Tea Partiers” will remain politically active in their area and coalesce around a candidate.
Sure, Tea Partiers in Boston will coalesce around a more liberal candidate than Tea Partiers in Wichita, but all it means is that they are supporting a candidate in their area who supports the things that are locally important to them.
The Tea Party movement is NOT a conservative movement, or a libertarian movement, or even a constitutionalist movement. It is an awakening. People are becoming aware of politics, of what politicians have been doing to their lives, and frankly they are angry at what they see now that they are awake.
The fact that conservative and libertarian political goals meld nicely with many of the Tea Party participants areas of outrage is a nice pat on the back for those movements fighting the good fight all along, but people who consider themselves Tea Partiers for the most part don't care about a coherent political theory that they can adopt and learn the nuances of.
They are just mad that they are taxed too much, that their tax dollars are wasted, and that their government is unresponsive to their wants and needs. So Doug Hoffman and Scott Brown don't share the same political views. So what. Each was responsive to the voters in their local area and hold the views that Tea Partiers in those areas agree with.
The problem most people are having with the Tea Party is that they think the Tea Party is a political party like the DemocRATS and the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party. It’s WE THE PEOPLE.
I look at it as a bunch of people who are ticked off at the government pissing on us and telling us it’s raining, and it has reached a critical mass. Whatever their alignment on other issues happens to be on an individual basis isn’t really relevant to the movement. Yes, it’s mostly a group of non-progressives, and maybe even some reformed progressives in there, and that’s the beauty of it... multi-partisan backlash over the same thing.
The Tea Parties scare the right people, just like Sarah does.
“One supports the nanny state and agrees with Barack Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, but support for civil unions. The other believes government should stay out of the issue of marriage altogether.”
Is or is not marriage a legal status, with a license granted by ‘the state?’ If so, does that not give the state (goverment) the right to determine to whom to issue such a license?
Do we give 5 year olds a drivers license, or a high school drop out a license to perform brain surgery? Or should government stay out of that, too? Maybe a libertarian wants to marry his pet goat. None of government’s damned business! At least according to this author.
There are limited purposes to government, and the feds have done a good job of overreaching, but there are some things where government, as reflecting the Constitution and the will of the people, certainly has its place.
As for Ron Paul, he needs to join the Democrat party like Specter did and let Real Americans take back this country.
Mr. Carlson, you need to stop trying to understand political movements based on what kind of label you can put on them or which personality you can associate with them. Just see them for what they are, using common sense.
But this will be very difficult if your mind runs on the left.
The Tea Party is about opposing the socialism of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. You have to know how to work with someone towards a common goal, even when there’s disagreements about separate issues - otherwise you can just just hand the country over to the collectivists.
Sign, just when I thought Libertarians might be getting a clue..