What is the Tea Party?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

The remnants of Ron Paul's Libertarian Party presidential 2008 campaign?

Where "socialism" is evil because everyone pays there "fair" share?  They prefer Capitalism where one keeps what they work for.  The problem is that the rich are so rich now they use their power to strip away the rights of those that work for them with impunity.

Socialism is compared to Nazi Germany and Communism.  Those are Dictatorships, not "Socialism" per se.  Dictatorships are where few have power and the rest have squat.  Like Capitalism is in this country today, and getting worse by the day.

What could go wrong?

[A4L]

I have a problem believing the weight that you are putting on the theocracy idea.
It seems to me we had more Christian culture and values as the mainstream and norm 50 years ago. Gays were not accepted in the mainstream hardly at all, numerous other Christian type values have lost the centrality that they once held to be sure. 50 years ago no one heard it questioned whether saying "Merry Christmas" in public schools was at issue.

You can't  tell me (I am thinking out loud) that the culture has not as a whole become much more secularized than it was previously years ago (At least I don't think).

Having values in society is not a bad thing. Those here that don't want God shoved down their throats seem ok with government deciding more and more things for others if it matches their ideologies.

I am for freedom. But accept common sense to be an adviser.  I would rather the government did seek to induce a model of values though action and deeds and reverence while staying out of people's choices as much as possible. And I think that is common sense. Do you want the White House to be a brothel filled with heroine addicts? Personally those things are people's choices and trying to say that someone is more moral by abstaining is a judgement.

So if you get my drift I am for modeling values but against legislating them.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

No one has a problem saying Merry Christmas in Public Schools now until religious zealots tried to take over the schools and force their snake handling habits down the throats of the rest of us.  

But it was a diversion and still is, to get tax payer money to fund their religious schools because, "public schools hate Christians."

James Kennedy even said it out loud, they be proud of their tricks.

[ProblemAgain]

[ProblemAgain]

you seem to have a lot of either/or concepts in that response...so if we are more accepting of gay people these days. is that a bad thing? unchristian?  and where the hell do you get the concept of the white house as a brothel filled with heroin addicts? or did you really mean heroine addicts as in people addicted to strong female figures of admired for great acts and fine qualities? in that case, i'll go for that. maybe vote hillary in 2016?

[A4L]

There is a theme in my musings. You muse as well, which I like.

I don't like the intensity of the political correctness vibe. I much preferred sitting around in Hobbit land smoking pot, high on LSD and talking about "what is the meaning of life?"

"Why am I here?"  "Why does a flower have a life force, and appear so beautiful?"

The child like innocence of waking up everyday to just wonder what great adventure is in store? 

I want to know what people think and why?  My question was, do we seek to uphold any values or must we annihilate values in the pursuit of not offending others? 

The example was just to ask do we seek to have the government promote or model anything?

It is problematic that we don't have any way of being in a vacuum. Everything is subjective. It is simply impossible to make everyone happy. If we honor Christmas someone may be offended, if we honor a different religion, someone else may be offended. If we demand that no religion be honored, we deny the core values and beauty of many.

I am just saying that I don't see a perfect solution.

Do you? One that embraces everyone? Can we draw a line against cheating, and stealing, and lying, and murdering, etc.? Or is that not a judgmental position?

So. I am suggesting that we try and model ideals that are positive that embrace both religious and non religious elements and veer away from legislating values as much as possible if they do not endanger others.

I mean what do you think?

I don't like talking politics directly so much because it limits and easily leads to finding where we divide our beliefs. I don't find arguing with anyone beneficial. We can all look up links that support one side or the other. Each of us though have unique personal stories that are not up for debate and only we can share. That I find interesting. What shapes your thoughts? Even if we come to completely different conclusions, if we get to them honestly, being offended by them seems a little less certain when seen through the eye's and mind's of the beholder's.

Parties don't speak for me. I hope to find those that represent my ideas. If someone says the things I like but live a way I hate, their life does not represent me, though their words in certain cases might.

"so if we are more accepting of gay people these days. is that a bad thing? unchristian?"-Problem


My point there was to say that I have no real sense that any political figure now a days no matter how "Christian" they see themselves as will in this society push us back into the past like it was, or come anywhere close to any theocracy. I just don't see it as possible!

We are sliding down hill. Moral values have declined. Going uphill can only come about by people deciding to make moral decisions that take real character and express virtue.

I see it as non virtuous to try and force others to adopt things that they don't want to do! Whether it be religious things or non religious things. 

I think character and virtue are important for society. But I agree with the ideals that fought to not allow to much power be given to a government to force any religion on others, even if it is well intended. But one can argue for the cause for a good reason, and still respect each individuals rights to make their own choices.


Sorry that I keep trying to figure our a better way to say essentially the same thing.

MY bad...

[Snagg]

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." - John Maynard Keynes, a British economist and a hero to most capitalists.

[ProblemAgain]

it's fine to worry about curtailing government. how bout curtailing corporate power? the 'dark ages' of capitalism came about when the big wealth controlled the government. at one time in england, it was a death penalty to talk about unions. and in our own country, big money bought political protection for thugs and others hired as strikebreakers. we aren't talking about companies hiring workers who would cross picketlines but rather men who would break bones and beat people and even kill to suit their employers. it's history. and right now, the far right rails about unions and union thugs etc etc... distraction from the fact that the wages of the working people are falling and have been falling for 30 years in comparison to the cost of living...all the while the employees are told they have to be more responsible for their own retirement and futures as companies flee defined benefits and healthcare (and all this was preobamacare so that herring won't work on this trail). in point of fact, the worst enemy small business has is BIG business.

[A4L]

' "when the big wealth controlled the government."

Exactly. Again corruption. corrupt government. The government makes the rules. End of story. When the government allows big business to control and influence government you have government supported corruption.

Why does the government not end the cycle of big business having more influence and a louder voice than "We the people?" 

Because the congress critters and other guvment officials are getting rich as they stay in office.

It seems like you keep wanting to make this about left and right. The more purist elements of left and right are fighting for principles and I see them as sometimes very similar but seeing the solutions to some of the same problems very differently. The folks in office are bred into a culture that makes them rich especially while they have this incestuous relationship with the special interests that get them elected and keep on lining there paths with carrots. We have the best government money can buy!

We need the best government where virtue can prevail!

It seems like people bypass the point of Milton Friedman. It is not that greed is bad. It is a fact of life. It is when greed coupled with power that is unequal and unique and unavailable to average citizens becomes a dictating force, blocking the path of average people from more opportunities to prosper.

In other words I am saying that yes big business's have advantages, and it is that way because big business's buy politicians in essence. Maybe it is subtle and in many cases somewhat hidden, but if the politicians want to make the playing field level they can eliminate the lobbyists and make laws that force the law makers to hear the voice of people without big lobbying power based on the larger numbers of people rather than the larger numbers of dollars. That just won't happen if Washington is left to it's own devices obviously. They voted to end the insider trading in Washington and then by procedural devices chewed that up and spit it out. Even the Young Turks who are not on the conservative end at all blasted this mess.

We all have a problem with Washington.

They will never become electorate centered until the electorate stop bickering over the left and right issues orchestrated by the news and the powers that be and start demanding honesty and integrity and putting an end to all of this special interest hoarding of power.

The government does need to fear us, and not the other way around.

What good does it do you to be a proponent of letting the government grow in power and reach and spending unchecked, when there will always be a possibility of the righties gaining power and using it against you ?

I don't want the government to grow in power, because I do not trust people to just automatically do the right thing whether they are on the left or the right. Politics is too central to governing now rather than governing being defined by strong principles and limits.

It is not the personalities it is the principles that we need to honor.

People just like systems are flawed. If you have a tree that grew lots of apples on one side and not much on the other, blocking the water to the tree is not going to make things better. Trying to equal the playing field by hindering the successful and the growth spots will not improve everyone's lot. Making success more available to more people will. Just water the tree and open up the pathways to the areas that may not be receiving enough water.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

"when the big wealth controlled the government."

Exactly. Again corruption. corrupt government. The government makes the rules. End of story.

I'm missing something here.  It is a few wealthy individuals that control a few a few  unethical politicians; i.e., the whole Evangelical and Libertarian Tea Party.

I guess the question is who corrupted who first.  I believe History is specific, the Robber barons started first, buying up weak minded politicians.  To be fair, so did the Mafia. 

Capitalism has too much power in this country, we need a Democratic Government by the people and for the people to regulate this unholy monster.

[A4L]

In any case, it seems that we sort of agree.

We are both saying that we want the government to represent "We the people" over we the lobbying special interests or crony capitalists!

I just don't think that capitalism itself based on the definitions I found is necessarily the problem or too much capitalism, but too much incestuous relationship activities with the powers that be that does favors for financial partners.

Why would it be bad to do some curtailing of those type activities?

A comment was made about the biggest problem to small business.

Here is a recent letter from Lloyd Chapman who is the main voice of the ASBL.  He has been fighting the abuse of the government for years by suing to get FOIA info to prove that government (our government) both dems and repubs have been funneling money to big business that has been intended specifically for small business.

This was to me a wake up call a few years back. It is not one group or the other it is both of them.

They would not do this if they adhered to their own Advertised "Core Principles!"

Breaking News

President Obama awards Medal of Freedom to Bill Clinton, Oprah Winf...

A Letter to Arianna Huffington from Lloyd Chapman, President of the American Small Business League

October 15, 2013 11:12 AM

PETALUMA, Calif., Oct. 15, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Friday I received an email from Stuart Whatley at the Huffington Post, with no explanation to notify me they would no longer be posting my blogs. I'm communicating with you this way because all other efforts to communicate with your team at the Huffington Post have failed.

I don't know if you remember me, but a few years ago you and I posted almost identical blogs on the same day criticizing President Obama. I don't remember if my office called yours or yours called mine but a line of communication was established.

A few years ago, on the day before Thanksgiving, you and I talked on the phone. It sounded like you were in your kitchen and I could hear the sounds of children in the background.

We talked about my campaign to stop the federal government from giving small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms. You told me you agreed it was unacceptable that the government was giving billions of dollars in small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms, year after year. We both agreed on the importance of small businesses to the national economy. You told me you would do all you could to help me.

A few months ago, I started to notice a difference in how my blogs were handled. My blogs used to post in a matter of minutes and would be posted prominently on the site. One of my blogs received over 3,500 comments. In the last few months, it has taken up to five days for my blogs to post. My most recent blog took almost three days to post.

Friends and supporters tell me that when they try to comment on my blogs, their comments don't post. My responses to other blogs and my responses to comments on my own blogs often don't post.

There are two issues that I fight for. I don't think Fortune 500 firms should be allowed to receive federal small business contracts and I don't think President Obama should be allowed to resurrect Ronald Reagan's plan to permanently close the Small Business Administration (SBA) by combining it with the Department of Commerce.

To me, turning the SBA over to the Department of Commerce would be like turning control of the NAACP over to the KKK.

What percentage of Huffington Post viewers and the American people would agree with you and I that Fortune 500 firms should not be allowed to hijack hundreds of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts for over a decade? I'm guessing close to 100 percent.

In 2008, Obama released the statement, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." I guess that proves I'm not a conspiracy nut.

Last year, the SBA's own data showed 235 Fortune 500 firms received billions of dollars in federal small business contracts. I have now won over 30 legal battles with the federal government forcing the release of data proving some of the largest corporate giants in the world are the real recipients of government small business contracts. I think that's more proof that I'm not the conspiracy nut the government would have the media believe.

I also have a bill in Congress I wrote, H.R. 1622, The Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act that will end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.

I have appeared in dozens of national television news programs and hundreds of radio shows discussing the issues affecting small businesses in America. I was very flattered when Entrepreneur magazine compared me to a "Modern day Cesar Chavez."

Several federal investigations and media reports I have worked on with ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have uncovered rampant fraud and the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants. The Huffington Post has been a valuable asset in keeping the public informed of the various federal investigations that have found fraud and abuse in Federal programs to assist American small businesses.

The SBA's own Inspector's General have named the diversion of federal small business contracts to large businesses as the number one problem at the SBA for nine consecutive years.

I have the utmost respect for you. My blogs on the Huffington Post have given me a voice in America that I would have never had and helped me to bring about significant changes in federal policies that have benefited millions of small business across the country.

The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees all Americans freedom of speech but you were the person that allowed us to actually be heard across the nation.

I sincerely hope you still feel the same way you did that day you talked to me from your kitchen. I hope you will still help me to keep fighting for the 28 million small businesses that create over 90 percent of the net new jobs in America, over 50 percent of the private sector work force and over 50 percent of the GDP.

I will appreciate anything you can do to see my Huffington Post account is reinstated.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Chapman
President, American Small Business League
707.789.9575
[e-mail]

SOURCE American Sm

http://news.yahoo.com/letter-arianna-huffington-lloyd-chapman-presi...

Again this is bipartisan corruption, and we are all guilty of participating in it's continuance if we do nothing but focus "singly" on just the issues that divide us!

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Very well!  

Historically, all Economic Depressions in this country have been a result of unregulated, runaway capitalism by the rich and their corporations.  Why?  There were no regulations to stop them.

Both D and R contributed to the runaway (greed) capitalism of George Bush's 2008 Great Recession. And the party that primarily caused it doesn't want it fixed, even though the taxpayers have to bail out these scrooges every time.  They want Obama "to fail".  Which means they don't care if you and I suffer.  Why would I ever vote R again?  

[ProblemAgain]

maybe, just maybe, leave the religion out of the equation. i don't give a damn what religion people choose to embrace or to not embrace any religion at all...there are perfectly moral, respectable people from all sorts of religions and even (gasp!) moral, respectable people who are atheists! the point being that for far too long our society has laid weight on the incessant bleatings of a pack of blowdried, polyesterclad unemployed muffler-installers who stumbled onto organized religion and said "verily, Cletus, this here pays better than them fucking mufflers and it's warmer in the winter too. let's start us a church!"  and bingo! the vacant 7-11 becomes the church of the living gonzo and the allseeing profits which leads us to donations and tithes and bingo night and blowdried polyester clad wanna be politicians bleating about how christian they are if you'll only vote for them so they can get their little trotters in the trough and some power besides...praise the collectionplate....