Posted on 05/10/2010 8:11:01 PM PDT by NY Hockey Mom
Perhaps the Republicans could have talked to the Tea Partiers ahead of time, read the platform and come up with some sort of compromise. But they didn’t. Instead, the delegates adopted a platform written by folks who, to put it bluntly, aren’t experts in politics. I’m not knocking the Tea Partiers in Maine. I’m knocking the Republican Party for failing to work with them and adopting a platform that would be palatable to both the Tea Party movement and the general public.
(Excerpt) Read more at lonelyconservative.com ...
***suggests (4) the adoption of “Austrian Economics,” ***
I saw that term in earlier postings on Monday and believe it is a typo by someone in Maine or the media.
It probably should read as “austerian” economics, which would equate to cutting the spending except for things absolutely necessary; being frugal with the taxpayers’ dollars.
Thanks for the thread hijack, idiots. This is an extremely important topic—establishment Republicans trying to crush the Tea Party movement—but it’s become a Ron Paul thread. Like we have any shortage of them.
Thanks, idiots.
I hope you were joking.
No, it’s Austrian Economics
See: The Road To Serfdom
by Nobel Prize Winning Economist
Friedrich von Hayek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
Oh, I dunno. I like what happened with the Platform. If it was some other state, the GOP establishment might’ve pulled some stunt like pulling the fire alarm or cutting the power to the building. But they did see the process through to the end and they lost and they didn’t pretend that they didn’t lose or adjourn the meeting for a month and not tell the delegates when the new convention was. They behaved initially like they would much rather just have the original platform approved and they did behave in a way that suggests that they were trying to hide or bury the alternative platform. But they didn’t have a fit when they lost and they didn’t publically embarrass themselves.
So, I’m not sure that I’m seeing much of “crush the Tea Party movement” here.
Thank you all for the replies to my supposition that there was perhaps an error made in the spelling. I had not heard of Austrian Economics before and truly believed it was a misspelling of the word austerian.
Although I earned an MBA, I HATED the Economics courses. lol Why? Because so much of the mess taught by the profs was theoretical, as were the Wiki articles you folks led me to, and were thus very difficult to relate to real life situations that existed at the time.
Academics tend to write using multi-syllabic words and phrases that people on the street cannot comprehend, as they want to get approval from their peers and publish their papers.
I did find a coherent statement in one of the Wiki articles, that would fit my idea of what the Maine folks want to do: “Austrian economists view entrepreneurship as the driving force in economic development, see private property as essential to the efficient use of resources, and usually (if not always) see government interference in market processes as counterproductive.”
That statement makes sense to me!
In the wiki article about the Road to Serfdom mention is made of the cartoon version that appeared in Look Magazine. I have seen that cartoon version and it’s worth looking at. Basically, the jist of it is - planned economies automatically lead to tyranny through a series of stages and the tyranny takes similar forms in each instance.
Sanity prevails amongst Maine Republicans. Lookin’ good Maine!
It makes me actually want to join the GOP.
Exactly. The rinos and party hacks need to go away and realize their day is done.
“I’m not really happy about the Federal Reserve, but nobody’s really said what we’ll replace it with”
How about free enterprise? Why replace the key handle the New World Order has on the United States?
Absolutely! Way to go Maine. All this compromising is what has been moving this country steadily left for years/decades. Line in the sand is here and now.
The idea that “The military can never be wrong” was something youy brought up, Not I.
You brought it up as a straw man to hide an unwarranted attack made by Ron Paul against our military.
The President of the United States is also the Commander in Chief.
This unwarranted and baseless attack that Ron Paul went around spouting in 1993 is absolutely relevent to his capacity to act as CIC.
No rhetorical manuever can make this go away. Not trying to put words into other people’s mouths, not distracting from that aspect of Mister Paul with economics, not claiming that the passage of time makes it okay. If you support Ron Paul you are stuck with defending this.
I supported the Duke Lacrosse players when Mike Nifong tried to ram a rape conviction through several years ago. That does not mean I support rape, it means that I think someone needs to be guilty of it before you convict them, and a crime needs to have happened before you hold a trial.
Ron Paul went around accusing our troops of wrongdoing on the basis of war being a scary thing where people die.
I’m saying that I’m neutral on this. I don’t give it much thought. I wasn’t trying to set up a strawman, now you’ve clarified your position.
You are saying that it is acceptable to criticize the US Military, then. Well, that’s what Ron Paul was doing. You happen to disagree with Ron Paul in that specific case. It’s a disagreement about what types of conduct deserve some type of second guessing. Personally, I don’t much care.
I don’t know much about what should be considered a valid or an invalid criticism.
I’m with you on the Duke thing.
Your argument re Ron Paul hinges on a newsletter written about 17 years ago which Ron Paul was the Publisher of. You believe that it’s OK to criticize the US Military, but you disagree with him in this particular case. I don’t think that makes him anti military.
Either way, it’s not a big issue to most. It might be to you, but to most it isn’t. Most are much more concerned about government being too big, and Ron Paul is as good as it gets on that issue.
Whoever is running for POTUS in 2012 should just go to Ron Paul and offer him Sec. of Treasury.
_____________________
I think that idea has potential actually!
I like ‘em though. All of ‘em. Hell, I just voted for a Representative to take Nathan Deal's place because he was the "Tea Party" candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.