Comments


  • BS Spotter
    I used to support the Coffee Party, but the coffee Party is a lame coffee shop meeting over politics and not a driving force to counter the Tea Party. Now the Occupy Movement to me is a bunch of zoned out hippies and ultra liberals with no leadership and set goals. I guess the only movement I support is my own, a DO-for-self movement.

    December 20, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.

  • cody said: "Instead of focusing on other countries problems we should focus on the crap that's going on here in america."

    Oh, you're an "isolationist" too! ;)

    December 20, 2011 at 11:19 a.m.

  • Instead of focusing on other countries problems we should focus on the crap that's going on here in america. But in corporate america if there is money to be made in a foreign country we get involved. Gee I wonder why the rest the world hates america. The nazis were not defeated they just moved to america.

    December 20, 2011 at 3:28 a.m.

  • BSspotter said: "Targeting crony capitalism would've been the most effective way to go." (I know that message has trickled out, but it doesn't seem to be a central plank.)

    I agree with that point completely- problem is it much like closing the barn door after the cows are out.

    I still hold hope that something good will come out of this - before greed destroys all.

    December 19, 2011 at 7:08 p.m.

  • Tophat,

    The main difference is we were extremely focused (the Bush regime had that affect) while OWS has a serious identity crisis and mixed—sometimes contradictory—messages. I really hoped OWS would've jelled into an anti-corporatism movement that recognized the role gov't has played in their Wall Street concerns, but I detect a sense of entitlement (free education, good jobs, etc) in their message that probably prevents them from criticizing gov't with any credibility. Blaming capitalism/capitalists alone is a dangerous road. Targeting crony capitalism would've been the most effective way to go. (I know that message has trickled out, but it doesn't seem to be a central plank.)

    I predict they'll share the fate of the Tea Party and be hijacked by the establishment—some combination of leftist leaders and unions.

    December 19, 2011 at 4:37 p.m.

  • BSspotter- good info on start of Tea Party- I never knew the history- sounds much like the OWS movement of today- one city, moved to another, etc.

    December 19, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.

  • Mr. Williams,

    We need to do some historical housekeeping. The original Tea Party wasn't "created". It's was a fairly spontaneous event that occurred on December 16, 2007 in some major cities, both as a protest of overbearing gov't and in support of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign. As someone who's paid very close attention to Paul since mid-2001 and lived in Austin (liberty hotbed) until mid-2008, I can attest to the groundswell occurring well before that first Tea Party. Many of us were actually trying to push Paul into running in late-2006. (There were even grumblings of it when I saw him speak in Bastrop in 2003.) For instance, I bought (& still own) the RonPaul08.com domain name in January 2007 and redirected it to various sites—and ultimately to the official RonPaul2008.com site—to get the word out.

    There were no designs on having a Tea Party movement. The movement was much more organic, decentralized, bottom-up than that. This was a phenomenon that was occurring everywhere and was loosely deemed the "Freedom Movement" (aka "Liberty Movement"), and Paul was its chosen workhorse in making changes at the top. There were future Tea Party events on the Boston Tea Party's anniversary that gave the scattered Freedom Movement groups a sense of unity in a single cause, but the anti-Obama sentiment of the masses crowded out & co-opted the original anti-establishment message.

    So, I consider myself a "founding" member of Tea Party 1.0 and the biggest critic of Tea Party 2.0. TP2 is an abomination that has very few principled ties to its predecessor. The Freedom Movement, however, is alive and well, which is evident in Paul's steady rise. The 2nd video you linked to is spot-on. Neoconservatism wrapped its tentacles around and smothered nearly all that was good about TP1, but it goes to show that you can't kill good ideas. The TP message was diluted with toxic neocon ideals to make it more palatable to the GOP sheep. It was a vehicle that allowed them to feel good about their hypocrisies. It made it ok to oppose Obama's brand of Big Gov't while not having to address the GOP's preferred brand of Big Gov't.

    To answer your question as to why the Tea Party wasn't formed sooner, implying we weren't opposed to Bush or that it was only an anti-Obama movement:
    There was a movement—albeit unnamed—opposing Bush's war in Iraq, police state measures, and other power grabs. The TP1 took root early in the Bush years, but it wasn't until late-2007 that the Tea Party concept came into play. I'm proud to have been a part of the original TP, but I'm ashamed of what it's become. If there's still a hint of a liberty message in TP2, I just don't care. The baby went with the bath water. We just don't need a top-down organization to further our cause.

    December 19, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.

  • BS Spotter.
    Why was the Tea party created on December 2008 and not on 2003, 2005, or 2007? I view the Tea Party as untrustworthy and have hidden motivates. Those motivates have more to do with the leader of this country or his political party than real issues. Case in point, I rather show you than tell you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiE8vg...
    View it from 1:25 to 2:20
    Then read the Speaker’s Sonogram bill.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

    Mr. Williams

    December 18, 2011 at 7:44 p.m.

  • I have been an eye witness to some of our less sucessful "interventions" and want our nation to stay out of others fights. But, big but, we live in a shrinking world with a booming population and we must always do what is in the best interest for the security of our country. This does not include going to war over WMD's that don't exist.

    We do deserve a sharp kick in the pants, along with others, for the state of affairs in the mid-east. As far as Pakistan and North Korea goes they need to be treated as the worlds problem. They have been shaped by events out of our control and usually by one of our allies.

    I keep hearing so many "simple" solutions for very complex problems and it frightens me that we have want to be leaders that claim to be able to fix the worlds with a wiggle of thier nose and a "Let it be so" statement. We live in the 21st century and must deal with other nations that think running water is a modern marvel. If non-intervention means ignore, our childrens future is in question. The attack on the twin towers was a wake-up not an isolated event. There is one non violent solution. Drive the price of oil to $1 a barrel and see how fast the middle east becomes like a memory of a bad meal.

    But it isn't that simple.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.

  • It's almost too bad that the tea party has come to be so closely associated with the Three Stoogettes--Palin, O'Donnell and Bachmann. Weed out the crazies!

    December 16, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.

  • Rebecca

    Would some people argue that we helped create the threat? Sis you hit the nail on the head.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:58 p.m.

  • "We had nothing to do with the severity of the Treaty of Versailles that bolstered the Nazi movement. Our hands are clean." BS, I couldn't disagree more.

    Woodrow Wilson's hands are not clean, far from it. In addition there are other reasons for WWII that implicate the United States, things like the Smoot Hawley tariff and last but not least our military and economic weakness during the lead up to the war.

    I agree with Ron Paul almost completely that a strong American economy is our best means of insuring our security. We do not need to go stamping around the world exhausting our military on every little insignificant crisis in some God forsaken place.

    We need a strong military, but need to be smarter than that, we need to carefully choose when and where we fight. We don't need to always use our military we just need to let people know that if we do we will bring it with a vengeance - speak softly and carry a big stick.

    December 16, 2011 at 2:59 p.m.

  • vet43,

    What came first — our meddling or the threats? Holding the myopic view that "terrorists" want to kill us because of our stature & values instead of our direct military actions & presence in their regions would falsely lead one to believe we are the victim. I prefer to look at the root causes of our problems instead of knee-jerking to the symptoms. It's much more palatable to our conscience to believe the attacks on us are unprovoked, but it doesn't make it so. It's time for reason to play a role in these decisions.

    How many future terrorists do you think we created in Iraq out of ordinary, innocent civilians whose families have been annihilated? If a foreign country bombed my house and killed my family, you'd find me signing up at the nearest retaliation camp. Hell, you might even see me in a grainy video crossing monkey bars and high-stepping through tires obstacles.

    December 16, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.

  • Would some people argue that we helped create the threat?

    December 16, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.

  • BS,

    If we choose to ignore the threat it will go away? Like Al Quada and the Taliban. As far a WW2, it was hot long before Dec. 7th but it wasn't our problem. There were other nations involved other than the US at Versailles.

    Then there is North Korea, Pakistan and Iran with nukes, not our problem.

    December 16, 2011 at 1:57 p.m.

  • I agree with non-intervention. His stand on withdrawing troops from bases outside the USA ( Japan, Germany, Italy et al) is not a good thing. Our bases in other countries by invitation is important to our national security. I have heard him talk about us having troops in places they do not exist. I would be against attacking Iran but we have folks that are nudging Israel to do it for us.

    December 16, 2011 at 1:47 p.m.

  • $1.5M+ at 1:30PM

    December 16, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.

  • vet43,

    Right, because we were completely isolated before then. We had nothing to do with the severity of the Treaty of Versailles that bolstered the Nazi movement. Our hands are clean.

    If we've been intervening in foreign affairs heavily since that time, why is the world still such a "dangerous" place? Isn't 70 years of meddling and policing the world enough to make the world safer? Is it not time for another approach, or are we destined to be in a perpetual state of offensive war?

    December 16, 2011 at 1:04 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    December 16, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.

  • (That was an old video, but I can't imagine Ron Paul changing his position on that.)

    December 16, 2011 at 12:58 p.m.

  • Unless something has changed, Ron Paul doesn't advocate isolationism. He is against invading other countries. The difference between isolationism and non-interventionism = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6Cj...

    Tell me if this has changed.

    December 16, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.

  • I can not support Ron Paul. His position on isolation is not the right thing of the world we live in today. It did not work in 1940 and it won't work today. The world is as dangerous today as it has ever been and we can't live in a vacuum.

    December 16, 2011 at 12:33 p.m.

  • $1.154M at 11:19AM

    December 16, 2011 at 11:19 a.m.