Gadsden Flag

Tea Party Palooza, or Lilith Fair For Gadsden Flag Zealots; Got Live Stream If You Want It

|

PJTV is streaming live from the Nashville-based Tea Party convention.

Go here to watch.

Beyond Sarah Palin, who's her own ball of worms and can of wax, I'm surprised (read: disappointed) by many of the featured speakers, including anti-immigrant Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and 10 Commandments iconist Judge Roy Moore. I wouldn't trust them with power or purse strings any more than I would the folks they're against.

Then again, there's the always entertaining new media hotshot Andrew Breitbart.

Advertisement

NEXT: Nick Gillespie on Bill Moyers Journal Tonight, 9PM ET, Talking Citizens United & Campaign Finance With Larry Lessig

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ok. Nick, you don’t agree with Tracendo on immigration. That is fair enough. But what does that have to do with “trusting him with the purse strings”? Is he a big spender?

    More importantly, if libertarians actually want to accomplish anything towards shrinking the size of government, they had better figure out a way to live with the majority of the country who are not transnationalists. Transnationalism may be wonderfully popular in Washington, but it is anything but out in the rest of the oh so unfashionable USA.

    1. You can say that again. If you want to see how unpopular, go over to over to alexa, and compare the web traffic to reason.com against stromfront.org. And if that surprises you, compare the demographics of the audiences that frequent them. If alexa’s demographic information is any kind of accurate, the xenophobes and racists are, as a group, better educated than The Enlightened Cosmotarians.

      1. Whoever you are, do yourself a favor and go sodomize your mother’s corpse.

        1. Apparently, better educated than the Enlightened Cosmotarians is a low hurdle to jump. 😉

          1. HURR DURR HURRR
            HURDLE
            HURRR HURRR HURRR

            Seriously, fuck you.

            1. Don’t feed the troll colostomy bag.

    2. Tancredo also said, in the runup to the Iowa caucuses in 2008, that we should obliterate Mecca if we were ever hit with another terrorist attack. The man shouldn’t be trusted with a game of tic-tac-toe, let alone anything involving more power.

      1. In was just looking around at the bits of Tancredo’s tea party speech that are online. He spoke of voters that can’t spell the word “vote” and that can’t say “vote” in english sending Obama to the whitehouse. That will get the tea partiers branded as racists. Judge Moore will almost certainly invoke the Christian God as the constitutional leader of the U.S. Who knows what Palin will bring up in her speech.

        Point being that the more the tea party allows big names for the sake of national legitimacy while disregarding what those names represent, the more they are going to attract the lunatic fringe while driving away the regular folks.

      2. I remember right after 9/11/2001 many people saying things like this. Some said the entire Middle East should be turned to glass and worse. But this is why lawmaking right after an event like that. But between 2001 and 2008 most people would be able to think more logically about the issue. I could understand if he said this in late 2001 – but not in 2008.

        1. forgot to finish one of the sentences

          But this is why lawmaking right after an event like that – is very dangerous.

          There – I finished it.

    3. +10

    4. But who said libertarians actually want to accomplish anything? Don’t go putting words in their mouths.

  2. “including anti-immigrant Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and 10 Commandments iconist Judge Roy Moore.”

    Yes, I do find that disapointing as well. I think that libertarians can still use the tea party protests themselves as places to spread the message and stand against government spending and debt.

    1. The tea parties are a national phenenomenon involving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. The Libertarian movement consists of a couple of hundred Objectivist college students, the staff at Reason, the twenty or so posters on here and one slightly used leather jacket. I am not sure how they will “use” the Tea Party movement for much or if the movement will notice if it does.

      1. You mention “Objectivist college students”. I have seen signs referencing Ayn Rand novels already. I passed out ISIL pamphlets at a tea party protest on Tax Day. The sign I held referenced healthcare.cato.org I think we are already being heard.

      2. Of course Libertarians don’t have any use for the tea parties. The tea party people are not ideologically pure Libertarians. Finding common cause with ANYONE isn’t the Libertarian way. Much better to have no affect on anything and remain pure.

        1. This is part of what lead to the various infighting in the Objectivist movement that made it ineffective as an intellectual force. Just ask David Kelley.

          1. Well part of the Objectivism itself is that one has to buy into all parts of the philosophy in order to be an Objectivist. Libertarianism is much more flexible.

            1. For those who do not know the story, the reason that David Kelley was excommunicated from Pope Leonard Peikoff’s church was that he had the audacity to accept an invitation to speak to a group of non-Objectivitist libertarians. What was he speaking about there? Objectivism.

              Libertarians need to be at least flexible enough to speak to others and accept invitations to join with others in a common cause. This is not the same as abandoning principles. We can make it clear to those we work with what lines we will not cross. But it is foolish not to work with others where we can and use such oportunites to explain our beliefs to others.

              1. Kelley’s talk was at the Laissez Faire Supper Club.

        2. Which Libertarians are you referring to? All of them?

          Much better to have no affect on anything and remain pure.

          It’s much better to exercise integrity than to follow a crowd that is ripe for exploitation by normative moralists. Another such crowd, I should say. We have experience with so many.

        3. Don’t dilute the brand by standing with conventient allies, who will only sell you down the river later on, when you are no longer useful to *their* cause. Fool me once…fool me 342 times….

          I’m not saying that this neccessarily the case with Tea Party-ers, but it’s increasingly looking to be the case, as the movement gets hikjcked by right-wing mouth breathers.

          1. as the movement gets highjacked by right-wing mouth breathers.

            Hey, I have sinus problems!

            1. At least he did not say fire breather!

      3. So, you define value in quantitative terms. Right? That seems to be what you’re doing. You can say that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who [fill in the blank]. Popularity is hardly an argument for action.

      4. Don’t diss the jacket.

        1. The Fred Flintstone hair-style, yes, but not the jacket.

          1. Fred and Barney had better combs.

    2. I wouldn’t trust them with power or purse strings any more than I would the folks they’re against.

      Judge Roy Moore is fiercely anti-tax, anti-federal government,and (despite his affiliation with same)ant-Republican Party.He’s well loved by the Constitution Party crowd.He’s a perfect fit with a substantial Tea Party faction,limited government fundamentalist christians While I wouldn’t trust him with power he would be excellent with the purse-strings.

      1. “Judge” Roy Moore wants to merge HIS church and state. He is a crazed wombat and your support of his idiocy makes you one.

        1. “Judge” Roy Moore wants to merge HIS church and state.

          Take deep breaths into the paper bag. That’s it … that’s it. Now that your heartbeat has slowed, why don’t you try to be rational? The Judge has never tried to merge any church with the State. Displaying the Ten Commandments is not merging a church with the State. There is no Constitutional requirement that the State pretend that religion doesn’t exist. Try not to let your hostility to Christianity fry your brain.

          1. OK, shrike and I obviously do not get along. But on this we agree.

            Let us take a look at these commandments and see how they relate to modern law in the United States.

            “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me.”

            Is it illegal to “have other gods before” YWH? No.

            “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

            Is this illegal?

            “You shall not bow down to them or worship them”

            Is this illegal?

            “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”

            Is this illegal?

            “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work.”

            For most Christian denominations the Sabbath is Sunday. For Jewish people and Seventh Day Adventists the Sabbath is Saturday. I happen to work on both days. Should I go to jail?

            “Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

            Here is something to think about. What if an abused child is brought into that court to testify against his scum-of-the-Earth child-abusing father and sees these commandments. If the child reads this particular commandments what thoughts might go through his head?

            “You shall not murder.”

            Fair enough. I have no problems with that one. I wish the state would observe it as well.

            “You shall not commit adultery.”

            I have no problems with this one but is it illegal? This is a court building do not forget.

            “You shall not steal.”

            No problems with this one at all. Does this mean I will not be prosecuted for “failure to pay taxes?”

            “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

            No problems with this one.

            “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

            Coveting is not the same theft. Coveting is simply an emotion. Is this illegal? By the way, I have no neighbors who own male or female slaves

            1. Excellent argument. You have convinced me that Judge Moore is merging his Church with the State. Remind me again, which sect is it? What government policies is he enacting to enforce the merger?

              1. “Remind me again, which sect is it?”

                Abrahamic Monotheism.

                “What government policies is he enacting to enforce the merger?”

                He is (or was) a judge of the law.

                1. “Abrahamic Monotheism” is a sect? That type of fluid use of word meaning qualifies you as a presidential speech writer.

                  Yes, I know he was a judge. I guessed that from the fact that his first name is “Judge”.

                  I’m still waiting to hear what Church Judge Moore was merging with the State and how he was doing so.

                  1. Why does “church” have to mean “sect”? PIRS is right.

                    1. Thanks Art-P.O.G. The point is that not all Americans subscribe to Abrahamic Monotheism. If you are a judge of the law you are a judge to all even if they are not a member of one of the Abrahamic faiths.

      2. While I wouldn’t trust him with power he would be excellent with the purse-strings.

        The purse-strings ARE power. And even if they weren’t, in our system the same people are trusted with both.

        1. The purse-strings ARE power.

          Then you should support Judge Roy Moore.He doesn’t think government should do very much.It is with which limited functions remain that I disagree with him

          1. This is almost certainly an easier fight than the one we’re in right now.

            But don’t expect the (vast teaming hordes of) rank and file around here to agree with that.

            I mean, you can’t give up on making gay issues a top priority.

      3. well if he is well loved by a theocratic political party then he must be trustworthy! (sarcasm)

    3. Oh, I get it. Recognizing borders means anti-immigrant. Any immigrant, including those greasy ones from Italy.

      1. I recognize that there is a border between Minneapolis and St. Paul. This does not mean I think people should be prosecuted for crossing that border.

        1. The existence of the border only says who gets to make the rules on either side. Closing and fortifying that border, and/or making it overly expensive or humiliating to cross it, is simply silly — cutting off your nose to spite your face. The only exception to that, which makes any sense to me, is during time of war and imminent or ongoing attack. Otherwise, if people obey the laws that prevail on either side of a border, why should they be prevented from passing back and forth freely? Just because we ARE a sovereign nation and CAN close our borders, that doesn’t mean we use our sovereign authority wisely when we do so.

    4. “including anti-immigrant Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)”
      Nick Gillespie is really being lazily dishonest there though; just because Tancredo has absurd, offensive opinions against *illegal* immigrants doesn’t mean you can blanket label him “anti-immigrant”. I’m not defending Tancredo as much as I’m reprimanding Gillespie. 😉

  3. It’s probably a good thing that The Jacket is not making an appearance. I’m not sure any venue could contain that much awesome.

    1. He is palling up with Bill Moyers, champion of Freedom and the Free Market.

      1. It was a national forum (OK, PBS) that gave Nick almost 40 minutes of uninterrupted air time. And while Moyers is a sanctimonious preacher, he isn’t Bill O’Reilly. He let Nick and the other guest speak at length without forcing them to race against computerized commercial breaks. I’d call that a win.

  4. taking odds on Olberdoodle and Madcow making a slew of teabag jokes and snickering like a 12 year old girl about it.

    1. I can almost guarantee it.

      They have no substance – they have no other arguments against it.

  5. anti-immigrant Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)

    He is against all of them now?

    1. I don’t know. Has he changed his mind since the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003?

      E.g.,

      Notwithstanding section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, during the immigration moratorium under section 2 in lieu of the worldwide levels of immigration under section 201 of such Act–

      (1) the worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under section 201(c) of such Act is zero;

      (2) the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under section 201(d) of such Act is 5,000; and

      (3) the worldwide level of diversity immigrants under section 201(e) of such Act is zero.

      1. Any reduction in immigration is anti-immigration?

        I am all for anybody without a violent felony* (or fleeing the charge) being able to immigrate but I will not be dishonest and call someone else with a different immigration view “anti-immigration” just because he sets a different standard than me and is still for a legal immigration requirement.

        *Felony here if the act were charged here.

        1. Yes, I would call a reduction of between 80% and 95% in legal immigration “anti-immigration”.

          How could one not?

          1. I detect exaggeration in great quantities.

            1. Sigh… All those “zero”s in the bill aren’t evidence enough?

              From Wikipedia

              The most prominent immigration reductionist in government today is U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo R-CO. Tancredo has authored a bill that calls for limiting annual immigration to between 30,000 and 300,000.

              Presently there are 1 million legal and half a million illegal immigrants per year. The moratorium wouldn’t lift unless illegal immigration is down to 10,000 from 500,000.

              1,500,000 – 300,000 = 80%
              1,500,000 – 30,000 = 98%

              Sorry. I was off on the 95%. It’s worse.

            2. Okay, I see I said “legal immigration”.

              Change that to…

              Yes, I would call a reduction of between 70% and 97% in legal immigration “anti-immigration”.

              How could one not?

  6. He is against all of them now?

    Just one. Irish guy. Shoveled him into his driveway one time.

    1. No harm there. What’s the problem?

    2. I know that guy! In Rome, he once got so drunk he kissed his wife and beat the Pope’s foot to a bloody pulp with a coal shovel.

      1. I was wasted, and the Pope was wearing a funny hat. Had it coming.

  7. Disappointed? C’monn Nick! You knew how this tea party crowd was going to play out. If you didn’t, you need to seriously reassess your bullshit meter.

    And Breitbart entertaining? About as much as a whiny seven year old.

    1. Exactly. The people who are likely to see Palin and the far right as bulwarks of conservatism (assuming they know what that means) aren’t going to sit down and crack open a 1000 page book about Austrian economics. It’s the logical result of wailing about “elitists” in general.

  8. I’m copasetic with the motivating ideals that drove the (small t.p.) tea party protests, and the protests / protesters themselves. They were a marvel of organic, leaderless self-organization by people sharing common objectives.

    By contrast this Nashville thing just gives me the creeps. Who appointed the organizers of this clusterfuck as Grand Poobahs of the Official Tea Party(TM)? It has the all the aroma of a small group of political con men and opportunists bilking well-meaning folks out of 500 bucks, on their way to a career as DC’s next direct mail mogul.

    This is exact opposite of the disintermediation that the tea party movement should be about. The best way for it to remain a big force in politics is by never creating a national organization.

    1. I don’t think anybody appointed them oh-anti-banjo. They got together and sponsored a gathering and people showed up for it.

    2. I totally agree.

      1. Your comment above was so sensible. Then, somewhere between there and here you started taking drugs. Or was it just one more for the road?

    3. The best way for it to remain a big force in politics is by never creating a national organization.

      Hmmm. Let’s think about this for just a moment. I know, to an anarchist it sounds like some kind of wet dream. But reality might say otherwise.

      This whole thing has political force at the moment only because it’s novel. The novelty will wear off.

      If it never produces leaders who are able to speak for what “it” is about — if it forever remains a giant, floating wad of potential energy — the day will come (not so far down the road) that the entrenched parties will simply ignore Its Great Impotent Ass of a Self.

      I agree 100%, the taking on of leaders is always risky business and it could well make for a still-born child. But let’s face it. A perpetually floating wad of potential energy ultimately amounts to nothing.

      People (and especially politicians) will live with this sense of “Watch it there Bud, I just might do something serious any moment now!” for just so long. After which it better actually do something, or it’s going to become just another part of the scenery.

  9. The Tea Party movement is widely misunderstood from what I read almost everywhere. The problem writers have is that it’s real population is not a solid body with leadership and a platform. Tea Partiers here in Los Angeles are quite different than those say in Arkansas. They share certain beliefs, but I often see them described by characteristics that are regional. Rally’s I’ve been to in California have lesbian factions, hippies, business people, housewives and blue collar workers, as well as being multiracial. Christianity for instance was nowhere in sight at many I’ve been too. I’m sure in other regions the demographics different. D.C. rallies had all kinds. Fiscal conservatism, anti-tax and dissatisfaction with most incumbents are issues I think that are universal with them. I hope it stays that way. Organization is over rated now days. If you can get people on the same page to vote and contribute money, then you are more effective than getting them to line up on the street. Especially if it’s behind carpetbagging assholes.

    1. “Organization is over rated now days. If you can get people on the same page to vote and contribute money, then you are more effective than getting them to line up on the street. Especially if it’s behind carpetbagging assholes.”

      I agree wholeheartedly. We need to fight for liberty on an issue by issue basis. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on imigration but will fight side by side with him on sound money for example. I do not agree with McCain on almost anything but will fight side by side with his efforts to end torture.

  10. Does the Tea Party movement have an opinion on threaded comments?

    1. Drink!

      (Actually, that’s just my opinion.)

    2. Speaking for every single tea partier in the whole entire tea universe, the answer is yes. Threaded comments suck.

      1. That includes green tea partiers.

    3. The educated among us call them nested comments. Hit and Run comments have been in threads since 2001.

      1. Fruity talk like that around a bunch of paranoid rednecks could be dangerous. Just sayin’.

    4. the silent majority > than anyone who says anything.

      That unreasonable argument still kills me.

  11. Teabaggers, like Mark ‘high pitch spermy voice single guy’ Levin are hopelessly out of touch with reality.

    Tyranny is something they don’t know about.

    Check out the Puritans, the Jacksonians, the Ku Klux Klan, the lynch-mobbers, the slave owners, the union busters, the Indian killers, etc.

    Give me a break.

    Teabaggers are stupid paranoid rednecks.

    1. Shrike, I did not realize that I was a stupid paranoid redneck. Please, tell me more about myself. You obviously know a great deal about me. What are my political beliefs? Why are my beliefs on religion? What kinds of books and movies do I like?

      1. Unless you are Mr. Mark “High Pitch Spermy Voice” Levin I don’t think I mentioned you.

        If you are one of the idiot Teabags complaining about how we “don’t follow the Constitution anymore” – yeah, then that would mean you.

        Income taxes are at lows, capital gains at lows, etc.

        You should have been Teabagging when the Bushpigs ran the annual deficit to $1.3 trillion.

        I sincerely believe you want smaller government – a laudable goal for sure.

        Its your timing bud – where were you when Dickless Cheney said “Deficits don’t matter’?

        1. “complaining about how we “don’t follow the Constitution anymore” – yeah, then that would mean you.”
          Can I assume you think that we are following the Constitution? Where does the Constitution give congress the power to prosecute people for drug laws? At least the people who wanted to ban Alcohol had the decency to Amend the Constitution first.
          “Income taxes are at lows, capital gains at lows, etc.”
          The government just borrows money now so future generations can have the pleasure of paying it back.
          “You should have been Teabagging when the Bushpigs ran the annual deficit to $1.3 trillion.”
          I was an active member of the Libertarian Party at the time. My activism took a different form but I was active.
          “Its your timing bud – where were you when Dickless Cheney said “Deficits don’t matter’?”
          An active member of the Libertarian Party who was educating the public via Operation Politically Homeless booths, ISIL pamphlets and Nolen Cards. It took a different form is all.
          Do you think your ad hominims add to the discourse?

          1. OK – I like a little “substance” myself from time to time – I consider the Nixon era ‘Controlled Substances Act’ anti Constitutional myself…. given Prohibition took an amendment but not the CSA.

            I’m (again) a leftish libertarian – I know taxes will never recede again – the best we can do is evade wars and open personal liberty.

            Which is NOT a GOP/Teabag position!

            1. “Which is NOT a GOP/Teabag position!”

              My point is that neither the GOP nor the Teaparty movement are monolithic. They both have a great diversity within them – including libertarians. So long as we do not begin by screaming insults at them we can make inroads.

              1. Forgive them. They are from an Obama down organization.

                1. I almost forgot – if you do not worship Obama this must mean that you DID worship at the alter of George W. Bush.

                  1. Yes. And your other suit is a KKK robe and hood.

                    1. Look at the Teabaggers. They loved Big Gov Bushy-Boy.

                      They hate PAYGO Obama.

                      Rednecks – the lot of them.

                    2. That reminds me. I need to pick mine up from the cleaners for a meating this weekend.

                    3. You too? The Chinese do the best job on mine. Who do you use?

                    4. Cubans. The Cubans may be a bunch of Mexicans but at least they hate the Catholic Commies.

                    5. God damn it! PIRS, did I miss a meeting topic? Just scrolled up and we are supposed to be killig injuns now? What the fuck! Do they think ammunition and/or rope grows on trees?

                    6. New rules from Robert Byrd. I think he’s getting senile to tell you the truth. But he still has a lot of pull you know.

                    7. Well the damn bastards need to lower that ammo tax if they want me wasting it on any injuns. Do we get credit if we just drag one to work behind the pickup?

                    8. Only if the pickup is a GM product.

                    9. FUCK YOU! I don’t own no GM! Ram tough baby! Pre-government.

                      Maybe I can borrow the old ladie’s Saab sedan. Looks like it has a good sturdy axle housing. Could hold a good loggin’ chain. Need to remember to bring baby wipes incase blood splatters on that white paint. Injuns have blood, right?

                    10. Think so, green blood though. Saw it on one of those Star Trek shows. Spok was one I think.

                    11. I thought Spok was a Commie? Whatever the hell. Better use those Scrubbing Bubbles wipes instead.

                      Short trip to work, yea, so I guess I will be dumping the body in a sewer drain. It has one of those preserve the Chesapeake stickers on it but fish need to eat.

                    12. No, them Klingons was the commies.

                    13. I thinks soss but they wants us to dispose of em in an enviromentally friendly way. Like in compost for gardens. But they stinks after a while. So put em far away from your house.

          2. “Where does the Constitution give congress the power to prosecute people for drug laws?”

            Although I completely agree with you on this, I would ask in return, “where does the Constitution give Congress the power to keep people from crossing our borders with Canada and Mexico?” I think you have to do as much hand-waving to come up with a federal immigration authority, as you do to come up with a federal authority to control food and drugs.

            Repelling invasions and turning immigrants into citizens, yes, those are among Congressional powers under the Constitution. But running “la migra,” or punishing employers for hiring “illegals” is not — at least, not in the Constitution that I have pored over, off and on, for the past several decades. The whole immigration authority seems just a big game of “let’s pretend.” And because it matches the aims of a great many protectionists in this country, nobody seriously questions it.

            1. “I think you have to do as much hand-waving to come up with a federal immigration authority, as you do to come up with a federal authority to control food and drugs”

              And I would agree. This is an area where I disagree with Ron Paul.

              1. I like this idea and it is a Supreme Court decision that I can agree with.

                See my other comment about just exactly who should be eligible for entering the country.

                1. The text in the link you cited reads like so much clever wordplay, without itself citing any clear immigration authority in the Constitution.

                  One statement is especially worthy of comment: “It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.”

                  Of course immigration and naturalization, while conceptually related, are separate and independent topics (and powers). As it has clear authority for naturalization, Congress, for instance, could confer US citizenship on all citizens of Haiti — even those still on the island and who will probably never set foot in the US. No immigration or residency would be necessary for this to happen. And, by the same token, there are millions of immigrants — legal and illegal — now in this country who are neither citizens nor on the path to citizenship. Tourists and other visitors — even those who stay for indefinite, very long periods — will NEVER become US citizens, yet are supposed to be subject to the extra-constitutional federal “immigration authority.”

                  So if it isn’t technically necessary for someone to immigrate to become a citizen, nor is it inevitable that those who immigrate become citizens, why does immigration authority automatically, necessarily flow from the authority over naturalization? I say it does not. But the reasoning at the cited website — while itself quoted from any Supreme Court decision — does exemplify the arbitrary, superficial nature of all related reasoning that I HAVE seen in Supreme Court rulings on the topic of immigration. In other words, those making this argument — including the august Justices — resort to a lot of flimsy logic and hand-waving.

                  1. Oops. Cut-n-paste error again.

                    Here is a corrected excerpt from the above:

                    “But the reasoning at the cited website — while itself NOT DIRECTLY quoted from any Supreme Court decision…”

            2. Putting aside the constitutionality question for the moment, may I posit a situation and ask for a thoughtful response from the open border idealists?

              What if the US adopted a true open border policy and China started shipping very large numbers of people, say 5 million a month, to the US, carefully removing any weapons they might be carrying so that they wouldn’t constitute an armed invasion force. Such numbers of immigrants would rapidly overwhelm the native population demographically. These new immigrants could be chosen by China’s government to be individuals who have no desire to stop being Chinese, to learn English or, in any other way, to assimilate into American society or adopt American political philosophy. Such a tactic would allow China to overthrow the US system of government and impose draconian censorship on the internet, shutting down H&R in the process.

              The question I have is, “What would you do for fun in such a scenario?”

              1. Sadistic Eristic, you are looking at “China” as in the government of the People’s Republic of China, and “Chinese People” as being one and the same. They are not. Just ask someone from Taiwan. The numbers of people who would be unfailingly loyal to the Communist Party are not likely to be that large. Especially if they have no fear of being arrested for speaking their minds.

                1. Don’t discount the power of ethnic loyalty. It is not necessary for the 5 mill per month to be blindly loyal to the Communist Party. The simple notion that, “We’re here, we are in the majority, why should we have to learn English and eat marshmallows and hot dogs? We should be running the show.” Would be enough to impel the destruction of America.

                  I, of course, was merely using China as an example to illustrate that a pure open border policy is, like most utopian ideas, worse than useless in the real world unless everyone else in the world is playing by the same rules, which is never the case.

                  Now, answer the dang question!

                  1. “Don’t discount the power of ethnic loyalty.”
                    I am of Irish heritage. Other than wearing green once a year and a fondness for Guinness my Irish heritage does not play a major role in my life.
                    “We’re here, we are in the majority, why should we have to learn English and eat marshmallows and hot dogs? We should be running the show.”
                    You have packed very different concepts into this sentence. I will address them separately. “We’re here”. I live in Florida, the land of the part time resident. There are times when my little city has a majority of what we call “snow birds”. This makes parking somewhat more difficult but otherwise does not change who we are or anything else about us. Indeed, we are a tourist town and they bring money into our community. We are thankful for their business. “why should we have to learn English” You don’t but you will miss out on a great many opportunities if you do not. It is to your advantage to do so. ” eat marshmallows and hot dogs?” Do you really want to use these two foods as representing American cuisine? I do not. How about hush puppies and walleye sandwiches? How about Cincinnati Chile or Herbsaint-poached Oyster soup? Far better than the cursed hot dog. Anyway, I enjoy sushi – does this make me Japanese?
                    “Would be enough to impel the destruction of America.”
                    LOL our own politicians are doing that already!
                    “I, of course, was merely using China as an example to illustrate that a pure open border policy is, like most utopian ideas, worse than useless in the real world”
                    And utterly failed in your attempt.

                    In answer to the dang question “What would you do for fun in such a scenario?” the answer is that I would hone my skills at p?tanque of course. I always did want to learn that game. Never got around to it though.

                    1. “The question I have is, “What would you do for fun in such a scenario?”

                      I assume there will millions of Chinese girls too…poor, lonely, desperate, hot ones.

                    2. “I assume there will millions of Chinese girls too…poor, lonely, desperate, hot ones.”

                      +1

                    3. “I assume there will millions of Chinese girls too…poor, lonely, desperate, hot ones.”

                      bagoh20 and PIRS both work for ACORN.

                    4. One baby policy. You might think they are Chinese girls coming here all you want, LOL.

                    5. Americans adopting baby girls from China is quite common now for this very reason. When those girls grow up to adulthood there will be many happy American guys.

                    6. Simply because they are Chinese? That’s fucking retarded.

                    7. Zolton, because there will be a higher population of females to males in the United States.

                  2. You have, of course, described much the same scenario that motivated our first serious immigration laws, the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the 19th Century. People became fearful of the “Yellow Peril” and many wholeheartedly embraced those laws — some saying that they didn’t go far enough.

                    History showed the xenophobes to be wrong. The Chinese who settled here did not overwhelm the pre-existing population; they or their descendants did learn English and “our” customs; and their loyalties attached to the U.S. This same multi-generational assimilation process has applied to all immigrant groups so far. Our own historical experience suggests that your scenario is very unlikely to occur, and so it is unwise to base routine policy on it.

                    But, suppose that it DID occur. Wouldn’t we soon be aware of the phenomenon? If so, and if we determined that the ChiComs were up to no good, couldn’t we simply declare war, after proving the case that the mass migration, promoted by the Chinese government, was indeed a form of invasion?

                    Or suppose there were really no invasion intended or achieved, but a mass immigration nevertheless. As long as the Chinese immigrants played by our rules, what would be our problem with them? Unless they were citizens, they couldn’t legally vote or otherwise elect our representatives or determine our laws. And nothing says that the US has to create new citizens with any speed at all.

                    Any immigrant who tried to vote illegally or otherwise exercise the privileges of a Citizen, could be restrained or prosecuted, up to and including deportation. This seems like more than enough protection of our “societal integrity” to suit me. Why not you?

        2. You should have been Teabagging when the Bushpigs ran the annual deficit to $1.3 trillion.

          Actually, the Tea Parties were happening then. To the surprise of many, Glen Beck didn’t invent this movement. They’ve been around since at least late 2008.

    2. Crawl back into his anus, from whence you came, Shrike

      1. Kafka? What a pussy you are.

        I’ve been to Eastern Europe. I was in Albania in 1991.

        You’re another delusional Bushpig anti-rights swill drinker.

        1. “You’re another delusional Bushpig anti-rights swill drinker.”

          Have you read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”?

          http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-…..amp;sr=8-2

          1. No. I run straight upfield.

        2. shrike hates freedom therefore he hates Levin. Pretty straight forward and refereshingly honest for a leftard.

          1. Where did I say I hate Levin?

            He is just another GOP fag.

            I don’t hate fags.

            I hate hypocrites like Larry Craig and Mark Levin.

            You must have known about his cock-sucking prowess.

            1. Wow! You have tallent! I have never before seen someone on H&R contradict themselves in the VERY SAME POST!

              Congrats, you win.

              Also, I did not realize that “High Pitch Spermy Voice” is a compliment. Apparently it is.

              1. He really neds to try Craigslist instead of here to troll for that action.

        3. Does anyone give a fuck that you were in Albania?

        4. Who gives a fuck that you’ve been to Albania?

        5. And you’re another delusional Obamabot anti-capitalism/anti-individualism swill drinker.

          Glad we got those parameters figured out!

    3. That reminds me. The snow is getting deep and it’s getting pretty cold outside. Better turn on the heat lamp for my slaves in the shed.

      Do you have any idea how much they eat? I need a stimulus package just for the gruel bill.

    4. Check out the … the Jacksonians, the Ku Klux Klan, the lynch-mobbers, the slave owners…..

      I did. Turns out they were Democrats, one and all.

  12. Like I said, some smart neocon and bible thumping politicians politicans saw the advantage the tea party could bring and took it over. The tea party movement is now nothing more than another faction of the republican base ie. not an outsider and not one committed to actually cutting spending…

    1. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. It certainly seems to be the case at this particular shindig, but we don’t have any evidence that this shindig will be at all meaningful after it’s over. Republicans who are both tea party supporters and supporters of stimulus spending I think will still have a lot of trouble keeping the former in check.

  13. Jesus Christ, one big event in Nashville does not make the overall tea party movement dead or taken over by bible thumping politicians. Get a fucking grip (shrike, Ziggy, et al).

    1. Don’t mention JC in front of this bunch. Well, maybe this will be entertaining.

      1. There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.

        This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men’s natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war — both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man’s soul).

        1. I was expecting something different and much shorter.

        2. More vapid reasoning from Ayn Rand.

          Worrying about the needs of others does not imply being a doormat.

          Any philosophy which does not inspire a conflict in one’s soul is a philosophy that correlates perfectly with a person’s animal instincts. The widespread adoption of such a philosophy will inevitably lead to a savage, insecure life for everyone.

          A philosophy need not be followed perfectly to do much that is good. Christianity has made the world a much better place and created the cultural gestalt that Ayn Rand lived in.

          All authority gets co-opted by the unscrupulous and opportunistic from time-to-time. Religious authority is no different. That does not mean eliminating religion will make the world a better place. Christian preachers used their authority to justify chattel slavery in the US. Christian morality promoted by other Christian preachers ultimately ended slavery in the US.

          1. “Worrying about the needs of others does not imply being a doormat.”
            Who said that it did?
            “Christianity has made the world a much better place and created the cultural gestalt that Ayn Rand lived in.”
            I think you are confusing Christianity qua Christianity to the theological teachings of people who call themselves Christians. There is a huge difference. How much of what is in the actual Bible forms the basis of our society? Have you ever eaten pork or lobster tail? Have you followed the recommendation Matthew 19:12? Just asking.
            “All authority gets co-opted by the unscrupulous and opportunistic from time-to-time. Religious authority is no different.” Authority not only corrupts, it also attracts the corrupt.

            1. Authority not only corrupts, it also attracts the corrupt.

              True. It is also true that it is impossible to eliminate all sources of authority so why pick on religious authority? At least religious authorities espouse a concrete definition of morality that can be thrown back in their faces when the authorities get particularly egregious in their behavior.

        3. But there’s this to say:

          By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. It has indoctrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness, thus implying that a man can have no personal interest in others?that to value another means to sacrifice oneself?that any love, respect or admiration a man may feel for others is not and cannot be a source of his own enjoyment, but is a threat to his existence, a sacrificial blank check signed over to his loved ones.

          The men who accept that dichotomy but choose its other side, the ultimate products of altruism’s dehumanizing influence, are those psychopaths who do not challenge altruism’s basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion against self-sacrifice by announcing that they are totally indifferent to anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man or a dog left mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind).

    2. It certainly does it, but if you have been to a couple of rallies in the east/west coast or your thinking of going, and you turn on CNN showing the “leaders” of the movement as tom tancredo and sarah palin, it certainly doesn’t inspire one to “join” the movement… although i just heard tancredo’s speech “didn’t go over so well” so maybe am wrong…

      1. *it certainly doesn’t it*

      2. I am curious, I have not heard the Tancredo speech, what have you heard about it?

        1. Sounds like the reaction of the crowd does not mesh with Nick and shrike’s pre-judging of them.

        2. I haven’t heard the speech itself but according to an independent who was attending, he was surprised that tancredo speech was not that well received, he said that aside from the “obama is a socialist” line which as he says “is a given here” his speech didnt inspire many…

          I dont know, we will see in the coming day what attendees say…

  14. I once listened to an interview with Moore. That’s one spooky dude — kind of mix between Cheney and Santorum, with just a touch of brute insanity.

      1. But Moore’s movies don’t get slapped down by the Federal Election Commission. Big difference.

  15. Where did I say I hate Levin?

    He is just another GOP fag.

    I don’t hate fags.

    I hate hypocrites like Larry Craig and Mark Levin.

    You must have known about his cock-sucking prowess.

  16. Teabag Reneck Nation in Progress……

    World Nut Daily Joseph Farah — Obama is NOT a citizen!!!

    Pure idiocy!

    Pure redneck!!!!

    1. Funny, I have never actually met anyone who claims Obama is not a citizen.

      1. Me neither. Citizens of Kenya are still citizens of someplace.

        1. Not only that, but just because you are born in Kenya does not mean you can’t be a U.S. Citizen. The only claim the birthers (I am not one) made is that he was not born in Hawaii. That is all. A baby who’s mother was American brought over at a young age would be a U.S. Citizen. No one claims otherwise. The only question is could he legally be POTUS.

          Personally, I do think he was born in Hawaii. I am just explaining their position.

          1. Hawii, Kenya, it’s all foreign. We need more presidents from America.

            1. Yes, and we need more presidents who speak American!

              1. Damn right baby! If American was good enough for King James and Jesus it should be good enough for the president.

              2. Do negro dialects count?

                1. I just can’t think straight when my robe and pointy hat is at the cleaners, Harry. Where are we on the Jews today? With the A-rabs or again ’em?

          2. Unfortunately, Barry is an American citizen. The proof is that if he weren’t one, Hillary would’ve used it to take him out of the primary.

  17. If you think people are losing their minds now because (1) the economy sucks, (2) the government is dysfunctional, and (3) a black man is president then just wait until (4) Chinese GDP is bigger than ours and (5) whites are the minority majority (or is it majority minority?).

    It’ll make the Tea Party seem like a, well, tea party. I predict that heads will literally explode.

    1. Obama is black? That’s it, I’m done with America!

      1. I know, I wish I knew that before election day.

        1. Me too brother. Me too. At least he isn’t the first one.

          1. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke?

            1. Yo bitch! Get me another 40.

              1. And a tuna with cheese and some Kools!

        2. Me too brother. Me too. At least he isn’t the first one.

          1. Not only is Obama black, but did you know that Nancy Pelosi is a woman?

            1. Now that’s funny! Come on, get serious again. We have important issues to solve.

    2. “If you think people are losing their minds now because (1) the economy sucks, (2) the government is dysfunctional, and (3) a black man is president then just wait until (4) Chinese GDP is bigger than ours and (5) whites are the minority majority (or is it majority minority?).”

      Who is loosing his mind because of 3?

      5 has already happend in several states including Texas.

      Wanna try again?

      1. I don’t have enough ammo and the old ladie’s car doesn’t have enough gas to fix 5. We need to bring back FDR and put them in camps.

      2. QED.

        1. “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.” “But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.” “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.”

        2. Truth is you have presented no actual evidence. Just assertions that this is the case.

          1. Then it was an assertion unworthy of comment and yet I will continue to assert that many American whites – the “Top Citizens” if you will of the current “Top Nation” – are not reacting well to their inevitable supersession both at home and abroad.

            1. By many, do you mean members of the KKK? If not, on what basis do you make this claim? I am frankly sick of people who make continue, in 2010, to make the claim that most Americans are racist and have no evidence to back this claim up. It is absurd.

              1. Did I hit a little too close to home? I don’t recall mentioning any particular party or organization.

                The Russians reacted badly to losing their empire (hell, they lost a large part of “their” country), the English and French reacted badly to losing their empire, and so forth back through recorded time.

                What makes you think that Americans are any different? American whites aren’t any better or any worse than any other humans and can be expected to react to the loss of their power like any other humans throughout history … badly.

                1. “Did I hit a little too close to home? I don’t recall mentioning any particular party or organization.”
                  Nope, but that is the usual accusation from people who make this claim.
                  “The Russians reacted badly to losing their empire (hell, they lost a large part of “their” country), the English and French reacted badly to losing their empire, and so forth back through recorded time.”
                  If by this “loss of empire” on our part you mean becoming non-interventionist I think many Americans are sick of fighting other people’s wars and would love to stop paying to defend Europe and Japan. The politicians might not like it but I don’t think the people would mind.
                  “and can be expected to react to the loss of their power like any other humans throughout history … badly.”
                  When you speak of “whites” loosing power you are speaking collectively. I am not a collective. You are not a collective. That is the mistake in your thinking.

                  1. By loss of power I mean the continuing relative decline of American power – military, economic, cultural, demographic, you name it – that will result in America become a second rank global power. I also mean the supersession of the political power of the white men who currently rule in America by others less pale.

                    Both are bound to happen. I do not claim that such changes are bad or good merely that they are going to happen and that they are going to cause consternation.

                    As a note, if you want to believe that people don’t have loyalties based on their skin color and that whites don’t hold the vast majority of political and economic power in America, feel free to do so.

                    1. “I also mean the supersession of the political power of the white men who currently rule in America by others less pale.”

                      Easy enough to stop that: just pitch out a few basketballs to keep the usurpers distracted.

                    2. As before, you are grouping unrelated concepts into a single sentence and expecting me to reply to the entire sentence. I will not fall for that trap. Instead, I will separate them and answer them separately.
                      “I mean the continuing relative decline of American power – military.”
                      More and more Americans are sick of constant warfare. Those who are not will always have VFW halls to get drunk in and remise about the good old days when they were near death in a war zone.
                      “I mean the continuing relative decline of American power – economic”
                      This can be corrected if we elect leaders willing to cut back on the size and scope of government intervention. Having a commodity based currency would help also.
                      “I mean the continuing relative decline of American power -cultural”
                      You mean Europeans are no longer imitating American genres of music? You mean blue jeans are declining in popularity? You mean Hollywood is no longer making more money from foreign sales than domestic sales? When did these things happen?
                      “I mean the continuing relative decline of American power – demographic,”
                      The United States is one of the few first world countries that is actually increasing its population. We have nothing to worry about on that front.
                      “I also mean the supersession of the political power of the white men who currently rule in America by others less pale.”
                      Those in power now are not doing such a great job are they?
                      “merely that they are going to happen and that they are going to cause consternation.”
                      Economic downturn would certainly cause consternation but what I am disputing is that race or ethnicity is part of the issue.

                    3. You do know the difference between relative and absolute decline, don’t you?

                      America will still be rich and powerful and influential, it’s just that other’s will be richer and more powerful and more influential. For people who think that only first and most count, this will be very difficult to accept.

                      And, just so you’re clear, the white ruling class is not limited to one party or another. Across the political spectrum, our American economic and political elites – and they are almost all white – have failed the country very badly over the last 20 years.

                    4. “You do know the difference between relative and absolute decline, don’t you?”
                      Yes.
                      “America will still be rich and powerful and influential, it’s just that other’s will be richer and more powerful and more influential.”
                      OK, fine
                      “For people who think that only first and most count, this will be very difficult to accept.”
                      And how many of these mythical people actually exist?
                      “And, just so you’re clear, the white ruling class is not limited to one party or another. Across the political spectrum, our American economic and political elites – and they are almost all white – have failed the country very badly over the last 20 years.”
                      And your point is ??.

                    5. How many people chant, “USA, USA, USA!” at the Olympics?

                      How many business people use the asinine and meaningless phrase “world class”?

                      How many people worried about Japanese economic power in the 80s and Chinese now?

                      How many people got their knickers in a knot when France wouldn’t invade Iraq with us?

                      My point is that you are one of the people who is and will continue to lose their minds of the inevitable.

                      Your powers of denial are impressive and are one further indicator that there’s going to be a terrible reckoning when it becomes clear to people like you that what I am predicting is what is going to happen.

  18. I wouldn’t trust them with power or purse strings any more than I would the folks they’re against.

    That’s because you haven’t thought it through.

    You don’t give them power because they’re going to deliver The Promised Land.

    If you wish to ever get anything done, you also don’t sit around waiting for The One who will deliver The Promised Land.

    What you do is give them power, which they can use to check and balance the assholes that are running DC right now.

    Freedom, more often than not, is achieved by setting all the animals in the ring up against one and other. Not by trying to kill off all the animals you don’t like, which in this particular case amounts to almost all of them.

    I’m not kidding when I say the libertarian movement could make great headway using Machiavellian principles in politics.

  19. We cannot stop the Teabag Movement. We can only hope to contain it.
    In my mouth!

  20. The whole thing sounds kinda crazy to me dude!

    Jess
    http://www.internet-anonymity.se.tc

  21. My GAWD! Is this what you boys do all night here?

    1. I did get some sleap.

    2. At night I dress up in spandex and a cape and go save little old ladies from muggers.

      1. I tried to link this.
        https://reason.com/blog/2010/02…..nt_1559942
        but the spam filter didn’t like it.

        Glad to see someone else is supporting the weaker of our society.

  22. Good morning Suki!

    1. Good morning again PIRS!

  23. Predatory Lending is a major contributor to the economic turmoil we are currently experiencing.

    Here is an example of what I am talking about:
    Scott Veerkamp / Predatory Lending (Franklin Township School Board Member.)

    Please review this information from U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley regarding deceptive lending practices:
    “Steering payments were made to brokers who enticed unsuspecting homeowners into deceptive and expensive mortgages. These secret bonus payments, often called Yield Spread Premiums, turned home mortgages into a SCAM.”

    The Center for Responsible Lending says YSP “steals equity from struggling families.”
    1. Scott collected nearly $10,000 on two separate mortgages using YSP and junk fees. 2. This is an average of $5,000 per loan. 3. The median value of the properties was $135,000. 4. Clearly, this type of lending represents a major ripoff for consumers.

    http://merkley.senate.gov/news…..925F046B6F

  24. NINJA loans occurred, the people signing the paper took responsibility. YSPs and origination fees and the such could be seen as incentive, but the bottom line is the information was only asymmetric if the person signing was unwilling to do their own homework.

    You can’t fix stupid and someone will always find a way to prey on stupid and lazy.

  25. After doing a run-through of the scheduled speakers, I found that there is a very nice mix of Jesus freaks, illegal immigrant scapegoaters, birthers, terrorist fear mongers, and concerned mothers (all by their own accounts). The one commonality, it seems, is that they are using the guise of limited government to further their own personal causes. I don’t think there was one Libertarian (with a capital “L”) on the list.

    In all fairness, however, it is difficult to predict what any of these people, or future candidates will actually do, once they are in power. Since actions speak loader than words, and none of these people have actually had the opportunity to make any decisions, it is difficult to judge their true intentions.

  26. Gee Nick, bloom coming off the tea party rose for you already? That was pretty quick–for you.

    YAWN–the usual nativist, militaristic, Christer kookery, pulled into sharp focus by one thing and one thing only: the darky in the White House. Remove Obama and it is just yesterday’s disorganized nuts and zealots. Sorry you fell for the romantic bullshit, Nick. But at least is sounds like you are getting better.

    1. What Henry said. Did you ever really think the teabaggers were anything more than yokels who wanted the guv’mint’s hands off their Medicare, ‘murica for ‘muricans, and to keep them gayz outta our neighborhoods?

  27. Here’s some more great news, Joe Farah was there(i’m being sarcastic):
    http://tinyurl.com/yf4qbpn
    “Are you ready to engage in a cultural war after we take back Congress?”
    “Yes!” the crowd yelled back.”
    God.Damn.

  28. By contrast this Nashville thing just gives me the creeps. Who appointed the organizers of this clusterfuck as Grand Poobahs of the Official Tea Party(TM)? It has the all the aroma of a small group of political con men and opportunists bilking well-meaning folks out of 500 bucks, on their way to a career as DC’s next direct mail mogul.

    -Iowahawk.

    Muy bueno.

  29. The Tea Party movement is as close as libertarians are ever gonna get to catching a bus to power. That bus could use your contribution to the ridership to stay in business, but if they fail, there will be no other bus coming along. And that long wait on the street will continue and you’ll get nowhere waiting for the perfect bus with no stinky people on it.

    1. I’ll wait for the next bus, thank you very kindly, even if it means sleeping in the subway for a while.

      1. After reading the daily knee jerk stereotyping of large portions of the electorate here, I really don’t know why you guys even expect to get anywhere. This country just doesn’t have the right people in it for you. They dress funny, smell funny, think funny and just don’t read the right books, if they read at all. They probably don’t even know the secret handshake.

        1. They don’t have the decoder rings, either.

        2. They know. That’s why they’re working hard at electing a new people. Problem is, the new people seem to have even less use for the libertarians than the old people.

          1. Be funny if it wasn’t so fucking stupid.

  30. Bagoh, the perfect may be the enemy of the good, as you infer, but the plainly idiotic is not even close to good.

    1. Any movement large enough to effect any change is gonna have a lot of people in it that don’t meet your ideals or even that you disagree with vehemently on something.

      I’m mostly libertarian in world view, but the Achilles heal I see in libertarianism as a movement is elitism. We already have rule by elitists now. I don’t like it and neither do most Americans.

      Libertarian ideas are getting some eye time lately and it looks like for many it’s just an opportunity to show how smart they think they are. “…that little white part on top of chicken shit, that’s chicken shit too.”

      1. Define “elitist”.

        1. “Define “elitist””

          When people think others must be just like them or they are unworthy to share power.

          1. Personally, I oppose anyone who tries to impose any restrictions on my personal or economic freedom. If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

        2. Tony and Chad, TP.

  31. “When people think others must be just like them or they are unworthy to share power.”
    So you are saying Republicans and Tea Partiers are very open to anyone being in office?

    1. I’ve been to Tea Party rallys and the level of acceptance of “others” there makes many of the comments on here an embarrassment. I think most Tea Party people would be accepting, even welcoming of libertarians. Unless of course they actually knew what you thought of them. You don’t really like the people out there who are making the most effort and progress at limiting government, because they are not your kind of people. At least that’s the impression one gets here.

      1. I agree. We should not alienate people who may be potential allies.

      2. Admittedly I have not been to a Tea Party, but I have heard from people who have gone and said that when they mention non-interventionism and ending the wars many are quick to label them “liberals, hippies, or socialists”. I don’t know if that actually happened, and I don’t know if what you say about your experience is true either.
        “You don’t really like the people out there who are making the most effort and progress at limiting government, because they are not your kind of people.”
        That’s complete bullshit, most of these people were nowhere to be seen during the Bush years, and the only reason Tea Partiers seem like they have made so much progress is because Republicans have latched on to there message and gives the illusion that they are working towards a limited government.

        1. “most of these people were nowhere to be seen during the Bush years”

          I hear this argument repeated over and over – usually from partisan Democrats. It is intended to make them look like hypocrites – or worse. Some use this argument to claim the tea partiers are somehow racist for not worshipping the new messiah. But let us look at this logically. Suppose your goal is to fight forest fires. You have been fighting forest fires for eight long years in northern California with no help from those lazy Oregonians. Suddenly the fires start crossing into Oregon and the Oregonians are outraged and people from all across the state of Oregon start taking volunteer fireman courses and start helping you fight these forest fires. Call them hypocrites if you want to. But they are here to help now. Are you going to turn them away and tell them to go home?

          1. It’s okay if WE spend trillions of non-existent dollars!

        2. My impression is that the Tea Party is not so much driven by what they want, but what they don’t want, which is completely in line with what libertarians don’t want. Government in their business and lives.

          Of course many of them are not pure enough to get in the libertarian club, but they are not the enemy. Many do believe there is an important role for the US military around the world, and that can be argued, as can many other points that are slightly off angle with pure libertarians.

          The important thing is that this movement has the people, momentum and ideology to move the ball in the right direction in a way that gives libertarian views the most potential for progress in a long time, if not ever. If it fails, the opposition will not only not agree with you on everything, they will completely run the oposite direction as they quickly did over the last year.

          Not that it matters really, but the movement did start as a reaction to Bush’s spending. That argument and many I see here against the Tea Party are excuses to shoot yourself in the foot.

          If you want the libertarian view to get top billing and overshadow or replace the Tea Party you are in denial about the American people’s willingness as a group to agree with all your values. If you want those values to make progress into the American system then take the first down, the receiver is just not open for the Hail Mary. I know libertarians pride themselves on being uncompromising and principled, but reason, dictates being reasonable.

          1. My impression is that the Tea Party is not so much driven by what they want, but what they don’t want, which is completely in line with what libertarians don’t want. Government in their business and lives.

            Remember when the media used to refer to the “leave us alone coalition”? I don’t think that coalition ever went away. It was just betrayed by the Republican Party and has never had another champion since.

          2. The problem with the Tea Parties is that our message is only partly welcome. Maybe that elitist/purist (is this a word?) ideology of ours is just us actually believing the Constitution is Law and reducing the size of government by, well actually reducing the size of government.

            I have been to a Tea Party and although many are sympathetic to reducing governments’ reach they are not willing to really do it. They only want certain area’s of government reduced. What answer do you get if you ask whether the DEA should be shut down? The ATF? Should we end DOMA? No, no and hell no.

            Leave this site and visit any “Conservative” site that supports the Tea Parties and post about the merits of Libertarianism. RedState, Gateway Pundit, Townhall, Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity. Libertarians are mocked, ridiculed and derided as anti-American, terrorist apologist, gold loving ‘tards.

            For all of the talk about how Libertarians need to use the Tea Parties to get our message out we just really aren’t welcome. It has nothing to do with Libertarians believing we are superior.

            1. “…our message is only partly welcome.” and “…they only want certain areas of government reduced.”

              If you insist on a lot more than that from any ally, you will remain without allies. Enemies who want none of your ideas will be much easier to find. The Tea Party movement has many libertarians in it, they just are not all “pure” ones. Nothing keeps movements in the fringe like insistence on purity, which is rarely even agreed upon within those movements. Success requires power and power requires numbers and numbers require tolerance. It’s just that simple.

  32. Who wants to make bets? Will this thread break 200 comments?

  33. Yes

  34. yes

    1. You are correct! This makes 200!

  35. yes

  36. Ah, the hell with it. maybe

  37. 9:30 am Tea Party at Blair House Thursday (2/25), 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. If anyone wants to meet for coffee beforehand I am at 202 833 5797

  38. Grow up and stop thinking only of your tiny selves!

  39. @bestpriceforsales equus 3100 I purchased this from Amazon and have NO problems with it. It arrived on time. However, I had conflicting reports from amazon and the company.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.