James Bovard on Tea Party Inconsistencies

[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

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.

I know you despise when you believe people are saying you said something, which you then claim you said no such thing.  I'm guessing it might happen again here, but I'll try to walk gingerly thru this minefield

You and I seem to have different views of "Limited Government"  I, as a conservative, refer to limited government as that which the government is constitutionally mandated to manage.  Anything above and beyond needs some Constitutional ammending.  You, seem to have a definition that anything the government does, constitutional or not, is "big government"

Yea, yea, you never said that.  However, how else is one to decipher what you're trying to say, other than that, when its made crystal clear that support of Bush, WITH the condemnations leveled at him by many a conservative at his bigger government approach somehow gets rewritten as still supporting big government??

And no the Tea party folk did not rally for MORE Government in regards to AZ (which I'm gathering now is the reason your sudden turn on the tea party...anything that dares to support the rule of law as it relates to immigration, must be bad), they, if anything, support PRESENT government to simply enforce existing law.  But that's really for antoher thread

Bottom line remains that the Tea party, much to the shagrin of you and Tee apparently, DO push for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, which happens to include existing constitutional mandates

[BT]

Your quote:

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.

The quote from the article:

One of the MCs gushed about how he and everyone else in the crowd loved the police. There was not a word spoken about the video released earlier that week showing a nearby horrendous police beating of an innocent University of Maryland college student.

You imply that the tea party and these beatings are connected. The article doesn't back you.

Nor does the article state that the tea partiers were even aware of the beating.

[Michael Tee]

<<You imply that the tea party and these beatings are connected. The article doesn't back you.

<<Nor does the article state that the tea partiers were even aware of the beating. >>

I assumed that the reason for all the lavish praise of the pigs was the reaction to the adverse press they were probably getting in the area over the beating.  It's almost impossible to believe that none of the tea partiers were aware of the shitstorm of anger over the beating.

[BT]

I assumed that the reason for all the lavish praise of the pigs was the reaction to the adverse press they were probably getting in the area over the beating.  It's almost impossible to believe that none of the tea partiers were aware of the shitstorm of anger over the beating.

Which is a far cry from assuming the entire rally knew about it.

[sirs]

Nor come anywhere close to the claim of some "unconditional love of the police".  Then again, one must consider the source

[Plane]

I assumed that the reason for all the lavish praise of the pigs was the reaction to the adverse press they were probably getting in the area over the beating.  It's almost impossible to believe that none of the tea partiers were aware of the shitstorm of anger over the beating.

Which is a far cry from assuming the entire rally knew about it.

I saw mention of that police beating on FOX News , don't the tea partyers have a rule that mandates that all members must watch FOX all of the hours that Rush Limbaugh is not on?

[BT]

Did FOX cheer on the police during the beat down?

[Plane]

Did FOX cheer on the police during the beat down?

You were watching some OTHER network?

I stand agast!


But no the Fox article showed the Police apparently misbehaveing .

[BT]

But no the Fox article showed the Police apparently misbehaveing .

I'm not aware of the details of the Md. beat-down.

I am aware that police misbehavior is often punished with termination or the option to resign, as was the case with the officer involved with the Ben Roethlisberger incident in Milledgeville

[Universe Prince]

I know you despise when you believe people are saying you said something, which you then claim you said no such thing.  I'm guessing it might happen again here, but I'll try to walk gingerly thru this minefield

You and I seem to have different views of "Limited Government"  I, as a conservative, refer to limited government as that which the government is constitutionally mandated to manage.  Anything above and beyond needs some Constitutional ammending.  You, seem to have a definition that anything the government does, constitutional or not, is "big government"

Yea, yea, you never said that.

Yeah, I never said that. I still don't understand why that never seems to matter to people.

However, how else is one to decipher what you're trying to say, other than that, when its made crystal clear that support of Bush, WITH the condemnations leveled at him by many a conservative at his bigger government approach somehow gets rewritten as still supporting big government??

Inquiry. You know, ask questions.

And no the Tea party folk did not rally for MORE Government in regards to AZ

It's a new law requiring, in effect, everyone to carry identification and produce it whenever so demanded by law enforcement. So yeah, it is more government.

(which I'm gathering now is the reason your sudden turn on the tea party...anything that dares to support the rule of law as it relates to immigration, must be bad)

Also something I did not say. So you're not gathering, you're inferring, and doing so incorrectly.

Bottom line remains that the Tea party, much to the shagrin of you and Tee apparently, DO push for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, which happens to include existing constitutional mandates

No, they don't. I admit, I thought they did and would. But, they don't. Just as 99.99% of the Republican politicians who make much rhetoric about smaller government and fiscal responsibility don't actually push for those things. Heck, even Reagan couldn't make government shrink. He couldn't even get it to stay the same size.

[sirs]

Bottom line remains that the Tea party, much to the shagrin of you and Tee apparently, DO push for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, which happens to include existing constitutional mandates

No, they don't. I admit, I thought they did and would. But, they don't. Just as 99.99% of the Republican politicians who make much rhetoric about smaller government and fiscal responsibility don't actually push for those things. Heck, even Reagan couldn't make government shrink. He couldn't even get it to stay the same size.

As I've already referenced.....we apparently have 2 completely different definitions of "Limited Government", not to mention Irresponsible Extraconstitutional spending.  Mine is the one focused on the Constitution and its limits, as well as mandates imposed upon the Government.  Yours apparently is more ideologically driven.  Sounds like alot of liberal Dems I know

[Universe Prince]

As I've already referenced.....we apparently have 2 completely different definitions of "Limited Government", not to mention Irresponsible Extraconstitutional spending.  Mine is the one focused on the Constitution and its limits, as well as mandates imposed upon the Government.  Yours apparently is more ideologically driven.  Sounds like alot of liberal Dems I know

So you're just going to assume, and leave it at that? I'm sorry, who sounds like a liberal Democrat?

[sirs]

Nothing to leave.  I've made it crystal clear the intentions of limited government by conservatives and the tea party.  You find weeds of extended enforcement of LAW, and presto chango...conservative's want bigger government, so says Prince

Here's a hint, neither I, nor the tea party folk have made such a claim, or even implied such.  But you've made up your mind that just can't be.  So, yea, your libertarian ideology is pretty entrenched, it would seem...analogus to a liberal Democrat.  Must fit template?

[Universe Prince]

"Must fit template?" asks the man who is trying fit me into one. "Must fit template?" asks the man who thinks new laws expanding the scope of law enforcement is not bigger government because, well, because he says it just isn't. "Must fit template?" asks the man who will tell me incorrect things about what supposedly I think, while he is refusing to ask me any questions about what my thoughts actually are. Hm. I dunno, Sirs, must you fit everything into a template?

[Michael Tee]

<<Which is a far cry from assuming the entire rally knew about it. >>

Most of the people in the area if they follow current events would have known about it.

The Tea Partiers were in the area.  Most of them follow current events.  Ergo, most of them would have known about it.

You're welcome.