James Bovard on Tea Party Inconsistencies

[Michael Tee]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0423/Tea-party-activists-Do-they-hate-liberals-more-than-they-love-liberty/%28page%29/2

Good article in the Christian Science Monitor about Tea Party objections to Big Government coupled with their unconditional love of the police (in the face of a horrendous police beating of an innocent student,) huge expenditures (only not in the defence budget, which Bovard likens to "holy water" in the eyes of the Tea Partiers,) 57% support for big-spending, budget-breaking George W. Bush, a previously-noted phenomenon, support for the National Security State and its Big Brother citizen-surveillance propensities, etc.

These are some seriously confused (if not downright hypocritical) individuals who seem to be totally incapable of serious intelligent thought.

[sirs]

WHAT "unconditional 'love' of the police"??

Military Expenditures are currently CONSTITUTIONAL vs that which is NOT, such as UHC??

Support of Bush was in NO WAY support of Big government.  For anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty, will note that the vast majority of conservatives CONDEMNED his "big spending and budget breaking" efforts

Quite the polar opposite of a "good article"

[Universe Prince]

These are some seriously confused (if not downright hypocritical) individuals who seem to be totally incapable of serious intelligent thought.

That is really funny, coming from you. Of course, anytime you accuse someone else of hypocrisy seems really funny.

Anyway, unfortunately Bovard is correct. Which means I was wrong about the Tea Party movement. I thought we were seeing some people start to own up to libertarian ideas. That was crazy optimism on my part apparently. They seem largely not interested in actually trying to achieve smaller government. Which means the movement is meaningless. It's a series "look at me; I'm doing something" rallies that aren't really doing anything.

Which I suppose means BT was correct. The libertarians aren't doing much. Some of us are trying to change that, but oh well.

Seems to me, the Democrats would get further if they just started ignoring the Tea Party movement. It's not really going to change things. It's just more of the same. Bummer.

[sirs]

We're going to have to respectfully disagree on this one Prince.  I see no where that would indicate the Tea Party folk are NOT supportive of a limited government and are absolutely appalled at our current rate of domestic spending & egregious debt being accrued, greater than every other president combined, including "budget-breaking George Bush".  You looking forward to the VAT?  I can confidently claim the Tea Party isn't

[Plane]

57% support for big-spending, budget-breaking George W. Bush,

What?
43% are not Bush supporting?

Historians may come to call Bush , the last good one.

[Universe Prince]

Support of Bush was in NO WAY support of Big government.

Yes, actually, it is. Bush was all about big government.

For anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty, will note that the vast majority of conservatives CONDEMNED his "big spending and budget breaking" efforts

Some of his spending and big government plans were condemned by some conservatives. A lot of it was defended. Drawn out occupation use of "security forces" in Iraq that were always 12-18 months away from being all brought home (spending), expansion of government surveillance (big government), et cetera, these things were and still are defended. Intellectual honesty requires one to point out that defending those things is not a support of smaller government.

[BT]

Good article in the Christian Science Monitor about Tea Party objections to Big Government coupled with their unconditional love of the police (in the face of a horrendous police beating of an innocent student,)

Whatcha talking about Willis?

What student beat by what police?

[sirs]

Support of Bush was in NO WAY support of Big government.

Yes, actually, it is. Bush was all about big government.

Yes, and considering who he was running against, in both '00 & '04, he was the lesser of big government.  Also support of Bush did NOT equate to support of big government.  Quite the contrary in fact, to nearly every conservative that voted for him

For anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty, will note that the vast majority of conservatives CONDEMNED his "big spending and budget breaking" efforts

Some of his spending and big government plans were condemned by some conservatives. A lot of it was defended.

By whom?  If you're talking our military interventions, one more time, they're constitutionally required.

Intellectual honesty requires one to point out that defending those things is not a support of smaller government.

It does when you're talking about the forest, and not a few trees.  Especially constitutional/military trees, in a time of war

[Universe Prince]

We're going to have to respectfully disagree on this one Prince.  I see no where that would indicate the Tea Party folk are NOT supportive of a limited government and are absolutely appalled at our current rate of domestic spending & egregious debt being accrued, greater than every other president combined, including "budget-breaking George Bush".  You looking forward to the VAT?  I can confidently claim the Tea Party isn't

Saying the Tea Party doesn't support the VAT doesn't mean they are supporting limited government. And opposition to the Obamacare stuff doesn't mean they want to see government power limited. The Tea Party folks in Arizona rallied for more government and more government spending in their support for a new law that is supposed to crack down on illegal immigration. You're probably okay with that. But that isn't support for limited government no matter how one may try to spin it.

[Plane]

So the Tea Party is not strictly Libertarian , well neither are they strictly anything elese.


I think that the Republicans are being falsely lauded as the party of "NO".

  It is the Tea Party that is focused on" No " and has little elese to connect its membership. There is no central office , there is no manefesto , there is just a gathering of people mad as hell and wanting to shout "NO MORE"!

This is a phenominon that could catapult new faces into office , but I don't see a positive agenda of any stripe , so some of the new faces might be Democrats or Libertarians , Republicans also ,even though I would like a survey of the TEA population to find out how many felt let down by the Republicans.

[Universe Prince]

Yes, and considering who he was running against, in both '00 & '04, he was the lesser of big government.

You could maybe argue that for 2000, not for 2004. And in any case, the lesser of big government would still be big government.

Also support of Bush did NOT equate to support of big government.  Quite the contrary in fact, to nearly every conservative that voted for him

Bush did nothing to limit government and lots to expand it. There is no way supporting him was not supporting big government. Your comment is sort of like saying "we never supported all the big government things he did, except for all the times we did."

By whom?  If you're talking our military interventions, one more time, they're constitutionally required.

No, they are not. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution of the U.S. that requires preemptive war.

Intellectual honesty requires one to point out that defending those things is not a support of smaller government.

It does when you're talking about the forest, and not a few trees.  Especially constitutional/military trees, in a time of war

That makes precisely no sense at all. What the crap are you talking about?

[Universe Prince]

So the Tea Party is not strictly Libertarian , well neither are they strictly anything elese.

I don't recall anyone saying they were strictly anything. But they do by and large appear to be supporting pretty much whatever Republican politicians bother to show up at the rallies.

[Plane]

So the Tea Party is not strictly Libertarian , well neither are they strictly anything elese.

I don't recall anyone saying they were strictly anything. But they do by and large appear to be supporting pretty much whatever Republican politicians bother to show up at the rallies.

Well yes , this is the Republicans being smart about it.

What do Cowboys do with a stampedeing heard of cattle?

They don't follow it , they don't stop it , they ride to the frount and TURN it.

[Michael Tee]

<<Historians may come to call Bush , the last good one.>> [plane]

Yeah, historians like you, who just told us in another thread what a great President NIXON was.  Alternate-universe historians.


<<Whatcha talking about Willis?

<<What student beat by what police?>>  [BT]

The article mentioned the pro-police love-fest in the face of a video showing local pigs beating the shit out of an innocent student in a Maryland town close to the site of the Tea Party.

[Plane]

<<Historians may come to call Bush , the last good one.>> [plane]

Yeah, historians like you, who just told us in another thread what a great President NIXON was.  Alternate-universe historians.

You misunderstand.

I did not say that Nixon was especially good in comparison to other US presidents , I said that he was especially good in comparison to Fidel Castro and Mao, which is an especially low standard , but appropriate since he was a contempoary to them.


Both Bush Presidents eisily eclipse Nixon in honesty , and giveing the People a square deal is what we really want. Nixon had a genius for devious intregue which brought us out on top in competition internationaly, but Americans are not really concerned with Internationally , If we were we would like Nixon and Obama better both for being so outward looking. Heck, we might even like Carter better.