News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the perception that the Tea Party movement is detrimental to the Republican Party, with claims that it panders to irrational fears and anger. Critics argue that the movement's superficial claims and extreme positions, such as those expressed by prominent figures like Rand Paul, alienate mainstream voters and threaten GOP unity. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of the Tea Party's influence, suggesting it could serve as a double-edged sword that might help Democrats in elections. Additionally, there is a critique of the political discourse surrounding the movement, emphasizing a perceived decline in civil dialogue. Overall, the Tea Party is seen as a significant yet controversial force within American politics.
  • #901


WhoWee said:
McCain was not effective in the debates. He made solid arguments, but Obama clearly had the advantage when it came to personality. Also, McCain tried not to be negative - he left that to Palin.
I actually hated Obama's personality. I found him hokey and rather fake. I was really turned off when I saw him on tv at some county fair where he was jumping around on the bleachers and acting like an Evangelical preacher. He tried to play to his "audience" and it just smacked of insincerity.

Just out of curiosity, would you have voted for McCain/Lieberman?
I honestly can't say. Believe it or not, I'm not into politics at all, until it's shoved in my face and I have to decide. It was Biden that made me feel better about Obama, I was hoping Biden might take a stronger role. Is Biden still alive? I haven't seen him in a long time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #902


Evo said:
I actually hated Obama's personality. I found him hokey and rather fake. I was really turned off when I saw him on tv at some county fair where he was jumping around on the bleachers and acting like an Evangelical preacher. He tried to play to his "audience" and it just smacked of insincerity.

I honestly can't say. Believe it or not, I'm not into politics at all, until it's shoved in my face and I have to decide. It was Biden that made me feel better about Obama, I was hoping Biden might take a stronger role. Is Biden still alive? I haven't seen him in a long time.

IMO - Biden was a gamble (even more so in 2012). He has undeniable Washington experience, but you never know what he might say (or do). I was surprised that Hillary wasn't on the ticket.
 
  • #903


WhoWee said:
IMO - Biden was a gamble (even more so in 2012). He has undeniable Washington experience, but you never know what he might say (or do). I was surprised that Hillary wasn't on the ticket.
Hillary was my first choice. That is one sharp lady.
 
  • #904


Evo said:
Do you really think sane republicans would would back her?

What's ironic is that the Democrats seem terrified she could win the General election while the establishment GOP is terrified she could win the GOP Primary and then spectacularly lose the General.

She lost the election for McCain,

Palin didn't lose McCain the election. If anything, I'd say she is what prevented Obama from winning the election in what should have been a complete wipeout landslide.

even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

Hardcore Republicans came out against her due to her lacking qualification, not being a nut. This claim I have never really understood, as she strikes me as squarely a standard right-wing Republican. Now qualified in terms of knowledge on issues, that is a different story altogether, and I do not see her at all as qualified in that sense.

The polls show more Americans do not see her as qualified to be President (including Republicans), so that is an obstacle she would/will have to overcome should she seek to run for President. So she won't get backing from Independents unless she can prove to them she is knowledgeable on the issues.

Personally, I would much prefer her to President Obama though (but that's because I never viewed him as very qualified either, and I'm a center-right guy). If I had to choose between Hillary or Palin right now, however, I would probably choose Hillary.

It was Biden that made me feel better about Obama, I was hoping Biden might take a stronger role. Is Biden still alive? I haven't seen him in a long time.

Biden was selected for his foreign policy record, but during his time in the Senate, he has been wrong on quite a few of the major foreign policy issues. Obama hasn't had him dealing much with foreign policy, instead he had Biden tied up with his healthcare bill.
 
  • #905


WhoWee said:
IMO - Biden was a gamble (even more so in 2012). He has undeniable Washington experience, but you never know what he might say (or do). I was surprised that Hillary wasn't on the ticket.

Not choosing Hillary as his VP was Obama's big blunder in the election, if he had chosen her, he'd have crushed McCain like a pancake.
 
  • #906


Al68 said:
And when you and a child's parent disagree about what their child should or shouldn't hear, who should consent on the child's behalf, you or the child's parent?Of course we can debate the specific age, but the principle is the same.

A little late on the reply to this one, but I think the individual (i.e., the "child") should get some say in what views they are willing to be exposed to. If they want to learn about evolution, but their parents' object, I think the child should have the right to learn what he/she wants regardless, especially considering its their future that will ultimately be impacted by the education. This is not even a case of a child making "potentially" dangerous choices, such as using drugs or having sex, simply one of them desiring access to information. Furthermore, as information becomes more freely available, the notion that a parent can realistically restrict a "child's" (I keep putting child in parentheses here, because I'm really referring to pre-teens and teenagers) access to information, on evolution, sex, politics, or anything else, is a fantasy. The most a parent can really do is explain their own views to their kids, and hopefully develop a good enough relationship that the kids have a reason to value their parents' opinions.
I am not suggesting the state should raise children, more so that children are not just mindless lumps of clay that parents have the "right" to shape however they choose.
 
  • #907


CAC1001 said:
Not choosing Hillary as his VP was Obama's big blunder in the election, if he had chosen her, he'd have crushed McCain like a pancake.
:rolleyes:

In what universe does winning by a margin of 365 - 173 count as a "big blunder"?
 
Last edited:
  • #908


Char. Limit said:
How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?
Would that be the conspiracy theory ticket?

Angle: "Obama is bringing Sharia Law to cities the US, like Dearborn MI"

Bachmann: "Obama's diverted 10% of the US Navy and booked 870 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel at a cost of $200 million a day"

(approximate, but true, quotes)
 
  • #909


Gokul43201 said:
:rolleyes:

In what universe does winning by a margin of 365 - 173 count as a "big blunder"?

I was thinking the popular vote, not the Electoral College, perhaps "blunder" was too strong a word though. But I think his not choosing Hillary still hurt him and took away from what would have been an even larger win.
 
  • #910


Gokul43201 said:
Bachmann: "Obama's diverted 10% of the US Navy and booked 870 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel at a cost of $200 million a day"

(approximate, but true, quotes)

The hotel one I could see as being accurate, but I don't see why anyone would complain there, I mean do they expect the Secret Service to just book one floor of the hotel!?
 
  • #911


CAC1001 said:
The hotel one I could see as being accurate, but I don't see why anyone would complain there, I mean do they expect the Secret Service to just book one floor of the hotel!?

If I recall, this article started the speculation?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...13-aircraft--N-button/articleshow/6874544.cms

"NEW DELHI: President Obama does not believe in traveling light. Long before the Air Force One touch down on Saturday, as many 13 US aircraft and four choppers have already flown in all kinds of equipment and 20-25 swanky cars to facilitate his stay in Mumbai and Delhi.

This is not all. As many as 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, have taken position in the Arabian sea off the Mumbai coast as part of security arrangements for the presidential visit.

Running the show will be over 500-strong presidential staff comprising Secret Service, Marines and intelligence personnel, who will co-ordinate with the Indian para-military and police forces to make Mr Obama’s visit secure and glitch-free. The equipment being brought in by the US agencies include a communication set up and the nuclear button. "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #912


CAC1001 said:
The hotel one I could see as being accurate, but I don't see why anyone would complain there, I mean do they expect the Secret Service to just book one floor of the hotel!?
Nevertheless, the hotel claim is the one that is (and has been) most easily debunked. You can not book "over 870 rooms" in a hotel that has only 294 rooms.
 
  • #913


Gokul43201 said:
Bachmann: "Obama's diverted 10% of the US Navy and booked 870 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel at a cost of $200 million a day"
Like the quote that it cost $200 million for the Canadian army security at the winter olympics.
Can you hire the US navy by the day?
Or did they have to turn down another paying gig to sit around in the Indian ocean.
 
  • #914
I posted this in the "Economic Recovery" thread as well - makes me proud to be an American.:mad:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/you-are-doing-a-tougher-job-than-me-obama-to-alam/707877/

"US President Barack Obama has lavished praise on the NGO 'Sammaan Foundation' founder Irfan Alam for his endeavour to create jobs for unskilled people by manufacturing rickshaws for livelihood and sustenance of unskilled people of Bihar.



"You are doing a tougher job than me by creating jobs for the unskilled people of your state and other parts of the country," he told reporters here quoting Obama's encouraging words to him in Mumbai yesterday.



Alam, who was part of a goup of industrialists who had met Obama, said that he had briefed the US President about his endeavour to help the rickshaw pullers to lead a dignified life by way of maximizing income, besides undertaking welfare measures for them. "

Maybe this is Obama's plan to wean people from welfare?
 
  • #915
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #916
WhoWee said:
I posted this in the "Economic Recovery" thread as well - makes me proud to be an American.:mad:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/you-are-doing-a-tougher-job-than-me-obama-to-alam/707877/
And why do you think it was worth repeating in a thread about the Tea Party?

WhoWee said:
Alam, who was part of a goup of industrialists who had met Obama, said that he had briefed the US President about his endeavour to help the rickshaw pullers to lead a dignified life by way of maximizing income, besides undertaking welfare measures for them. "

Maybe this is Obama's plan to wean people from welfare?
I'm getting tired of these fallacies! What does a privately instituted welfare measure (i.e., employee benefits) in India have to do with government welfare in the US?
 
  • #917


Gokul43201 said:
And why do you think it was worth repeating in a thread about the Tea Party?

I'm getting tired of these fallacies! What does a privately instituted welfare measure (i.e., employee benefits) in India have to do with government welfare in the US?

Why is Obama wasting his time and our tax dollars on this nonsense? The Tea Party thread is an appropriate place to discuss the activities of our leaders that make the average voter scratch their head.
 
  • #918


WhoWee said:
Why is Obama wasting his time and our tax dollars on this nonsense? The Tea Party thread is an appropriate place to discuss the activities of our leaders that make the average voter scratch their head.

The average voter probably scratches their head because they have fleas.

Sorry if this has already been pointed out.

For some odd reason, I've been avoiding getting involved in this thread.
 
  • #919


WhoWee said:
Why is Obama wasting his time and our tax dollars on this nonsense?
Yeah, I'm sure spending a few minutes talking to someone who has doubled the incomes of 10 million impoverished families in 2 years - without any government assistance - is nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money. Heck, one might have thought this was exactly the kind of person/initiative that the Tea Party would have considered a role model.

The Tea Party thread is an appropriate place to discuss the activities of our leaders that make the average voter scratch their head.
And if the best conclusion one can draw is that a chat with an entrepreneur in India that uplifted a huge segment of low-income population without government help is somehow indicative that Obama wants more government welfare in the US ... then I can only recommend a lot more scratching.
 
  • #920


From my understanding, Obama is also in India because they are one of our main allies, right?
 
  • #921


Gokul43201 said:
Yeah, I'm sure spending a few minutes talking to someone who has doubled the incomes of 10 million impoverished families in 2 years - without any government assistance - is nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money. Heck, one might have thought this was exactly the kind of person/initiative that the Tea Party would have considered a role model.

And if the best conclusion one can draw is that a chat with an entrepreneur in India that uplifted a huge segment of low-income population without government help is somehow indicative that Obama wants more government welfare in the US ... then I can only recommend a lot more scratching.

How many US jobs have been outsourced to India?

What is the goal of this trip?

Personally, I hope Obama continues to fool himself and his supporters that he's on the right track - it will guarantee his loss in 2012.
 
  • #922


WhoWee said:
How many US jobs have been outsourced to India?
I don't know. How is that relevant? Would you like India to be considered an enemy state because jobs get outsourced there as a direct consequence of free trade?

What is the goal of this trip?
Why don't you tell us? It is you that is claiming it is nonsense.
 
  • #923


Gokul43201 said:
I don't know. How is that relevant? Would you like India to be considered an enemy state because jobs get outsourced there as a direct consequence of free trade?

Why don't you tell us? It is you that is claiming it is nonsense.

Why is Obama in India? Is he creating jobs in the US - or is he focused on political struggles /war effort in the region?

If you want to defend his actions and dismiss the expense of his trip - then do so.

Please explain why the American people should not be outraged by his behavior.
 
  • #924
WhoWee said:
Why is Obama in India? Is he creating jobs in the US - or is he focused on political struggles /war effort in the region?

If you want to defend his actions and dismiss the expense of his trip - then do so.

Please explain why the American people should not be outraged by his behavior.

There seems to be some sort of rage against obama and his trip. He is on a ten day trip to SE asia, not only india. After India he's visiting indonesia, south korea and japan. I thought the trip was to build better relations including trade with these countries.

He signed 10 billion $ deals in india.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/obama-starts-india-trip-with-10-bn-biz-deals/707603/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #925


WhoWee said:
How many US jobs have been outsourced to India?

The other day, I thought I might have been confused as to what was be being discussed on another thread. But I think I wasn't.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i82480"
US President Barack Obama allegedly ... defended the charity's right to place its helpline in a location of its choice, praised its work and then refused comment on its wisdom, successfully confusing the American nation for the 3rd time in as 3 months.
What is the goal of this trip?


"[URL
... Obama India[/URL]
Welcome... News outlets are reporting ... that Obama’s trip to India will cost tax payers $200 million a day. Even more ..., there are reports that Obama’s trip will use one-tenth of the United States Navy.

Well then, it's obvious he's trying to boost someones economy.

Personally, I hope Obama continues to fool himself and his supporters that he's on the right track - it will guarantee his loss in 2012.

Gads I hope you're wrong. I'm fully invested in nearly all Goreish stocks at the moment, and see his energy independence policy would make me a pig pot of gold.


---------------------------------
I do believe I'm rapidly getting the hang of this cut, snip, paste, innuendo, lie, kind of thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #926
schizoid said:
There seems to be some sort of rage against obama and his trip. He is on a ten day trip to SE asia, not only india. After India he's visiting indonesia, south korea and japan. I thought the trip was to build better relations including trade with these countries.

He signed 10 billion $ deals in india.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/obama-starts-india-trip-with-10-bn-biz-deals/707603/"

"He signed 10 billion $ deals in india." - Let's analyze this statement.

Obama was just handed one of the biggest political losses in recent history. This trip was delayed twice? Now, with all the glory of a victory tour, he takes a huge entourage on a trip to India to create jobs in the US - correct?

The linked article says "On his longest visit to any country, US President Barack Obama today announced USD 10 billion worth deals, including a USD 2 billion equipment sourcing plan of Anil Ambani Group firm Reliance Power and SpiceJet's pruchase of 30 Boeing 737 aircraft.



"As we look to India today, the United States sees an opportunity to sell our exports in one of the fastest growing markets in the world. For America this is a jobs strategy," Obama said kick-starting his Saturday-to-Monday visit to India.



Addressing a business summit, he said US companies were finalising 20-odd deals worth around USD 10 billion (nearly Rs 44,000 crore). "

My question - does anyone think these deals were negotiated this week? Does anyone believe that Obama is responsible for making these deals happen? I wonder how many of these deals were put on hold (and for how long) to coordinate with this impeccable timing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #927


WhoWee said:
If you want to defend his actions and dismiss the expense of his trip - then do so.
I'm sorry to disappoint you - I have no plans to defend his actions in general. You are the one making claims - it is your job to justify them. Saying that Obama wants to expand welfare programs in the US because an entrepreneur in India was taking measures to improve the "welfare" of his employees is a bogus connection. Saying the trip costs $200 mill a day, when those expenses are unknown, is a bogus claim. Saying that a big fraction of the navy is being diverted away from more important responsibilities, when the Pentagon denies this, is a bogus claim. Saying that eight hundred odd rooms have been booked at a hotel that only has a third of that number of rooms is a bogus claim. I'm more than happy to simply point out exactly what looks more like "nonsense" here.

There's a wall in the Reagan Presidential library that displays the flags of all the countries that Reagan visited. Should we have someone try and justify every one of those visits? Reagan visited 12 countries during his second year in office. So far, Obama has visited 4 countries this year. And that doesn't tell us a thing about whether the trips were justified.
 
Last edited:
  • #928


WhoWee said:
I wonder how many of these deals were put on hold (and for how long) to coordinate with this impeccable timing?

If it were impeccable timing, he'd have done it before the election.

hmmm...

Or is it two years early?

hmmm...

Maybe Obama's learning to play the game too.

:smile:
 
  • #929


WhoWee said:
I wonder how many of these deals were put on hold (and for how long) to coordinate with this impeccable timing?
It's impeccable timing to tout job growth measures just after an election?
 
  • #930


WhoWee said:
"He signed 10 billion $ deals in india." - Let's analyze this statement.

Obama was just handed one of the biggest political losses in recent history. This trip was delayed twice? Now, with all the glory of a victory tour, he takes a huge entourage on a trip to India to create jobs in the US - correct?My question - does anyone think these deals were negotiated this week? Does anyone believe that Obama is responsible for making these deals happen? I wonder how many of these deals were put on hold (and for how long) to coordinate with this impeccable timing?

Yes his party lost heavily in the elections, does it mean he has to cancel all visits to other foreign countries and resign from his presidency.
 
Last edited:
  • #931


Gokul43201 said:
I'm sorry to disappoint you - I have no plans to defend his actions in general. You are the one making claims - it is your job to justify them. Saying that Obama wants to expand welfare programs in the US because an entrepreneur in India was taking measures to improve the "welfare" of his employees is a bogus connection. Saying the trip costs $200 mill a day, when those expenses are unknown, is a bogus claim. Saying that a big fraction of the navy is being diverted away from more important responsibilities, when the Pentagon denies this, is a bogus claim. Saying that eight hundred odd rooms have been booked at a hotel that only has a third of that number of rooms is a bogus claim. I'm more than happy to simply point out exactly what looks more like "nonsense" here.

There's a wall in the Reagan Presidential library that displays the flags of all the countries that Reagan visited. Should we have someone try and justify every one of those visits? Reagan visited 12 countries during his second year in office. So far, Obama has visited 4 countries this year. And that doesn't tell us a thing about whether the trips were justified.

I am disappointed. I posted news accounts from Indian sources - this is their perspective of the trip. You are correct, we don't know what this trip is actually going to cost taxpayers.

I wonder if the companies (like GE) are paying their own way? Afterall, they clearly went there to finalize very lucrative deals - it's not as if they can't write the expenses off.

As for the hotel, it's also clear that the entire entourage isn't staying in less than 300 rooms - they are staying somewhere nearby.

As for the welfare comment - I was being snide - should have labelled it as such.

As for the Navy, I have no problem with ships sailing into a war zone (region) where the President is visiting. I also noticed that drone attacks have been successful in Pakistan in the past few days.

Again, this thread is about the Tea Party movement and average citizens questioning why and what our leaders are doing. While this trip can be painted as creating jobs, it can also be said these deals would have happened even if he hadn't gone to India - unless he made promises that we don't know about.
 
  • #932


I wonder how much it cost us a day to provide security for the Karzi regime in Afghanistan compared to how much it costs us to provide security for our president on his trip to Asia?
 
  • #933


jreelawg said:
I wonder how much it cost us a day to provide security for the Karzi regime in Afghanistan compared to how much it costs us to provide security for our president on his trip to Asia?

I think both are valid questions in the context of the Tea Party wanting to know more from the most transparent Presidency of all time.
 
  • #934


Concerning the cost of Obama's trip to Asia, wouldn't the Navy, and the secret service, get paid anyways. wether or not they are in Asia? Is this supposed 200 million a day the cost of the hotel rooms and fuel costs alone?
 
  • #935


WhoWee said:
I think both are valid questions in the context of the Tea Party wanting to know more from the most transparent Presidency of all time.

And the Tea Party is the most transparent political organization ever right? I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected. A campaign tactic of keeping silent on most issues, and refusing to answer questions is a real hopeful change.
 
  • #936


jreelawg said:
And the Tea Party is the most transparent political organization ever right? I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected. A campaign tactic of keeping silent on most issues, and refusing to answer questions is a real hopeful change.

Do you have a link - to help us all remember? The main difference is that Obama promised transparency.
 
  • #937


WhoWee said:
Do you have a link - to help us all remember? The main difference is that Obama promised transparency.

He promised to try and make government more transparent. This can't be difficult being that he came after the GOP. I think he probably is more transparent than the previous administration. How dumb is it though, to use the argument that he isn't transparent enough when your own preference is for someone drastically less transparent. At least they are honest about it I guess.
 
  • #938


jreelawg said:
He promised to try and make government more transparent. This can't be difficult being that he came after the GOP. I think he probably is more transparent than the previous administration. How dumb is it though, to use the argument that he isn't transparent enough when your own preference is for someone drastically less transparent. At least they are honest about it I guess.

You said "I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected." - now please, do you have a link.

As for the discussion of transparency - it was arguably the cornerstone of Obama's campaign.
 
  • #939


WhoWee said:
You said "I remember Angles comment, that she'll answer questions when she gets elected." - now please, do you have a link.

As for the discussion of transparency - it was arguably the cornerstone of Obama's campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_ill_answer_those.html

I might of missed the part where you explained how Obama's office has been Opaque? Was this just about the cost of the trip?
 
  • #940
jreelawg said:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_ill_answer_those.html

I might of missed the part where you explained how Obama's office has been Opaque? Was this just about the cost of the trip?

Ok? You have a tape of a reporter chasing her through an airport parking garage?

I thought you had something like this (from her opponent - a few years ago):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/20/politics/main2709229.shtml
""I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid."
 
  • #941


I have a question: Within the available set of fiscal conservatives in Republican primaries, how often has the Tea Party endorsed a more socially liberal candidate over a politically viable social conservative? One that I know of is Paul. Who are the others?
 
  • #942


Gokul43201 said:
I have a question: Within the available set of fiscal conservatives in Republican primaries, how often has the Tea Party endorsed a more socially liberal candidate over a politically viable social conservative? One that I know of is Paul. Who are the others?
Oh good question. I think there are many cases. Back later ...
 
  • #943


Gokul43201 said:
I have a question: Within the available set of fiscal conservatives in Republican primaries, how often has the Tea Party endorsed a more socially liberal candidate over a politically viable social conservative? One that I know of is Paul. Who are the others?

Paul is socially liberal?

Did anyone see Paul on Parker-Spitzer yesterday? Interestingly, one of the only buget cuts he doesn't support [though he won't name any specific viable cuts] is one that reduces fees to doctors for Medicare services. Parker pointed out this constitutes either 30% or 50% [not sure now which number was cited] of Rand Paul's income!

Paul thought Spitzer was being unfair. What a flimflam man.
 
  • #944


Ivan Seeking said:
Paul is socially liberal?
Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.
 
  • #945


Gokul43201 said:
Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.

Ah, I see.

I see these as traditional conservative values - one's that I do agree with and in part [conceptually] the basis for my own history as a Republican. However, his comments about civil rights [denial of services based on race] come to mind as an outlier.
 
  • #946


Ivan Seeking said:
However, his comments about civil rights [denial of services based on race] come to mind as an outlier.
I think his position on that issue is also one that is as close to a traditional libertarian position as I've heard from anyone in Congress. Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.
 
  • #947


Gokul43201 said:
I think his position on that issue is also one that is as close to a traditional libertarian position as I've heard from anyone in Congress. Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

That is how I understood his comments as well.

It was this sort of attitude that brought the Federal troops to the South during the civil rights struggle. He would have us turn the clocks back 100 years to the day when "niggers" were run out of town.

Let there be no mistake. We moved beyond this decades ago and his position is all about violating the rights of the individual.
 
Last edited:
  • #948


mheslep said:
Oh good question. I think there are many cases. Back later ...
Hmmm. Well I'm finding it difficult to come with answers. Hard to find who supported who back in the primaries. The Tea Party Express (a wing that endorses, other wings won't endorse) endorsed a Democrat for the House (Idaho) early on, but them later reversed and picked up the Republican instead.
 
  • #949


Ivan, exactly how did you read Gokul's post:
Gokul43201 said:
...Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.
(highlights mine)
then agree that is indeed Paul's position:
Ivan Seeking said:
That is how I understood his comments as well.
and then go on to equate the above with
Ivan Seeking said:
It was this sort of attitude that brought the Federal troops to the South during the civil rights struggle. He would have us turn the clocks back 100 years to the day when "niggers" were run out of town...
 
  • #950


Gokul43201 said:
Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Also I wouldn't myself call those socially-liberal positions (except for the medical marijuana issue), just a different branch of conservatism. Remember there are different types of conservatives, for example there are your conservatives who emphasize a strong national defense and military intervention overseas when needed, then there are your conservatives who claim we should be much more isolationist, and that we don't need a military with a bunch of overseas bases and so forth as we have.

One type of conservative is okay with the Patriot Act, others see it as an affront to liberty. and so on.
 

Similar threads

News Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?
2
Replies
75
Views
10K
News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
6
Replies
293
Views
35K
News Paul Krugman Explains True Conservatism: Same Old Party
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Mr. President: Coffins ? Bring Them On ?
Replies
7
Views
3K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
Replies
27
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top