- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
Well, I disagree with the perception of “extremism” since Republicans have been on the side of social and fiscal conservatism in their philosophy for at least the last three decades, but I will agree with your sentiments here: I don't think I've ever considered myself a “Republican” even though I often vote for Republican candidates. I actually think this is something that is peculiar to the right. I'm not worried that the Republican party will become "irrelevant". I think that is a message put forth by the left as a way of shaping public opinion and marginalizing the opposition. Rather, I think that there is regular flux in political opinions; just as Republicans were solidly in control in the early 2000s, Democrats are now solidly in control. However, we are already seeing the tide shift once again and Republicans look to have the upper hand in the 2010 elections.
Isnt it kind of Curious that the Democrats had a lock on congress for over 40 years before 1994 yet the republicans held it for only 12 years and now it looks like the deomocrats will lose their majority this fall after only 6? I wonder if that is because neither major party really stands for what the American people want? This kind of feeds into my perception that America is ripe for the rise of a viable third party. I would also predict that any third party will not be the libertarians, I don't think anybody is ready to see Ayn Rand's philosophy go big time except for those pathetic few that are libertarians and probably dont realize how much control is implicit in her philosophies.
...because neither major party really stands for what the American people want? This kind of feeds into my perception that America is ripe for the rise of a viable third party. I would also predict that any third party will not be the libertarians....
Agreed; all points.
The Tea Party movement has to retain their focus on economics. If they allow themselves to be distracted by social issues they will fade away. Besides all the social stuff will be irrelevant if we cannot put the books in order. Federal funding for abortion will be amoot issue when there is not federal funding for anything except debt service.
The Tea Party movement has to retain their focus on economics. If they allow themselves to be distracted by social issues they will fade away. Besides all the social stuff will be irrelevant if we cannot put the books in order. Federal funding for abortion will be amoot issue when there is not federal funding for anything except debt service.
I know we have debated those kinds of issues earlier in the thread, so I will just ask - why do you even bring this up? I mean, where are you seeing a "distraction" by social issues? Perhaps I am missing something but I have not anywhere where social issues are being introduced into the Tea Party mix.
I know we have debated those kinds of issues earlier in the thread, so I will just ask - why do you even bring this up? I mean, where are you seeing a "distraction" by social issues? Perhaps I am missing something but I have not anywhere where social issues are being introduced into the Tea Party mix.
I don't think they are either, yet. I do however think they will be. It is also not that I think social issues are unimportant, I think they are. I just do not think they are as important right now as fixing the federal budget. I think the Tea Party movement is the best chance we have now of getting the government to make the hard choices necessary to ensuring the continuation of the republic and I fear that if they let themselves be distracted they will lose steam. To be honest, I expect liberals to try and insert social issues into the debate in hopes of derailing the Tea Party movement rather than conservatives. I think most conservatives will take the practical approach of focusing on economics while letting social stuff hover in the background. Liberals have the most to gain right now from focusing on social issues, I am actually kind of surprised hey haven't fastened on it more yet. Remember, so far it has not been economics killing the Health-care monster, it has been federal abortion money that has made legislators withdraw support. Social issues are strong and important.But the Tea Partiers signature is economics and it should stay that way. I am harping on it because I think we all need to keep our minds focused on the immediate objective, which is economic reform. Defeating liberal social efforts will naturally follow economic reform because so many of their proposals rely on federal largess for their enactment.
I almost missed this:Coffee Party activists say their civic brew's a tastier choice than Tea Party'sWhat's this poser "Coffee Party" about?
I have been searching for a place of refuge like this for a long while. . . . It is not Us against the Govt. It is democracy vs corporatocracy . . . I just can't believe that the Tea Party speaks for all patriotic Americans
I see two immediate problems with this. First, that idea is already well represented in the Executive and Legislative branches, and one might argue the Judicial branch as well. I really don't think you can imitate the success of a legitimate protest movement when you really don't have much to protest in the first place.Second, the movement's message and heart has long since been taken by another group. They're called Marxists.
I know nothing of this movement, but your words are confusing me–I need enlightenment.How are people (in a democracy) protesting Corporations like Marxists?Could they not be small business owners, socialists, progressives, anarchists or Christians advocatingSocial Justice--why Marxists all the time?Are we in the sematical slough again?
How are people (in a democracy) protesting Corporations like Marxists?Could they not be small business owners, socialists, progressives, anarchists or Christians advocatingSocial Justice--why Marxists all the time?
The present debate which pits "democracy" vs. "corporations" is Marxist at its heart. Why can't "small business owners, socialists, progressives, anarchists or Christians advocating Social Justice" also be Marxists?
All the groups I mentioned could be Marxists by which I hope you mean that they would advocate that thegovernment would control all the means of production until the final stage of Communism--a classes society--was achieved which would mean that the government would wither away. I find it had to concieve such a thing--but it is possible.Are you saying that I-- a believer in democracy and have great reservations about the actions of Corporations--am a Marxist at heart--you jest of course! Your brush is too broad.
I am afraid you are using an academic definition of the word, whereas mine is more colloquial. Try this definition of Marxism to see what I was referring to:"The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society."http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxists
Ok–That is a working definition and many people see the cavalcade of history as a struggle between classes. However, that does not mean they pay homage to Marx nor do they necessarily desire a classless society. In my experience with my many LIBERAL kindred spirits, I have concluded that the last thing they want is to be forced to hobnob with the hoi polloi. This may something to discuss at a party, but fewif any consort with the working class either at work or in their leisure activities. How can they be expected to deal with people who prefer Rolling Rock to Sam Adams or Kirin beer and read People instead of Harpers? Not only Conservatives live in gated communities.
