Latest tea party target: Its own convention

[TickTockMan]

by Kenneth P. Vogel

The convention is being held at a fancy resort, features $550 ticket prices, a steak and lobster dinner and a guest speaker with a $100,000 speaking fee. It’s sponsored by a for-profit company with a mysterious wealthy benefactor, and its organizers, who have been accused of secrecy and corruption, have threatened lawsuits against dissenters and clamped down on news coverage.

Sounds like just the kind of thing that tea party activists, whose populist outrage is directed at the Washington and Wall Street establishments, would be up in arms over.

Except it’s a tea party convention.

It's sad when third parties are just as bad as the main two. Funny though they are not trying to hide the fact they wanted to make a profit. The quote below I liked the best.

But that wasn’t the impression Hemrick left with several tea party activists on a mid-November conference call, when in the midst of arguing how important money was to a successful convention and broader political movement, Hemrick mentioned that he intended to pitch Palin on a business venture he and some partners were developing.

“For all of us who were on this call, it was a news flash,” said Tami Kilmarx, who was active in Tea Party Nation and convention planning until a dispute over secrecy and control with Phillips and his wife and business partner, Sherry Phillips. “We realized (Hemrick) had his own designs, which are not in line with what this grassroots movement was all about."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100121/pl_politico/31816

 

[jizzeater]

The Tea Party isn't a third political party. It started with Ron Paul, and has been hijacked by typical Republican dittohead Fox News viewers and used to bash Obama and the Democrats.

It doesn't surprise me in the least the movement has become a clusterfuck, because anything the out-of-touch GOP elites touch is doomed to turn to shit. Sarah Palin? That is a fucking bad joke.

 

[TickTockMan]

The Tea Party isn't a third political party. It started with Ron Paul, and has been hijacked by typical Republican dittohead Fox News viewers and used to bash Obama and the Democrats.

It doesn't surprise me in the least the movement has become a clusterfuck, because anything the out-of-touch GOP elites touch is doomed to turn to shit. Sarah Palin? That is a fucking bad joke.

If they were not so crazy I would support them. Of course I think Ron Paul is great so I would think that.

 

[Ambrocious]

The Tea Party isn't a third political party. It started with Ron Paul, and has been hijacked by typical Republican dittohead Fox News viewers and used to bash Obama and the Democrats.

It doesn't surprise me in the least the movement has become a clusterfuck, because anything the out-of-touch GOP elites touch is doomed to turn to shit. Sarah Palin? That is a fucking bad joke.

Your absolutely right about the hijacking part. Ron Paul started it and now we got Benedict Arnold's like Glenn Beck who are pretending to be all for the tea party but actually he is going to crash it to it's knees with deception.

Ron Paul is a truly admirable man and if anyon should vote, it is for him really. He is a Republican but the fruits of his desires speak for themselves. He openly states that the CIA has taken over everything and that the Federal Reserve needs to be audited. He calls for a smaller government and as we all know, big government means major oppression. Ron Paul isn't good because he's a Republican though, it's because he truly is injecting real issues that need to be faced immediately.

There are very few people left in politics who are not corrupt to the core and Ron Paul is still a good egg in my book.


NOTE: Alex Jones is making a film attacking Glenn Beck for the traitor he is, should be out in the next couple months. "The Beck Deception" FTW!


CLICK AND WATCH THESE VIDEOS, EDUCATE YOURSELF, FREE YOUR MIND.

The Obama Deception [Made In March 2009]
Fall of the Republic [Made In October 2009]

 

[White Eagle]

It's sad when third parties are just as bad as the main two. Funny though they are not trying to hide the fact they wanted to make a profit. The quote below I liked the best.






http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100121/pl_politico/31816

What's funny to me is that most of the teabaggers wouldn't be able to afford to go to the convention.

 

[bike10]

Guess one has to have money to be true Tea Bagger.

 

[Kulindahr]

NOTE: Alex Jones is making a film attacking Glenn Beck for the traitor he is, should be out in the next couple months. "The Beck Deception" FTW!

Oh, that sounds like it could be fun!

What's funny to me is that most of the teabaggers wouldn't be able to afford to go to the convention.

With gas prices as they are, most teabaggers couldn't even afford to get there in the first place.

 

[Telstra]

Tea party sounds stupid.

 

[Kulindahr]

Tea party sounds stupid.

Only if you forget to invite the Queen.

 

[jizzeater]

Fuck Ron Paul. I like libertarians, but that dude is full of shit.

Can't you find a more civil and informative way to express your opinion? That vulgar comment adds nothing to the thread at all.

 

[TickTockMan]

Ron Paul selectively believes in the Constitution. Better?

Such as. . . ?


What I know of the man he is more of a constitutionalist than most.

Also you could say that about ALL politicians.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ron Paul selectively believes in the Constitution. Better?

He believes in more of it than any other politician on the national scene.

 

[TickTockMan]

He tried to pass a law to prevent a host of social issues from being contested in Federal courts. With that kind of blatant disregard for judicial review, you might as well take the Constitution and piss on it.

Got links?


I've never heard that about him.

 

[jizzeater]

He tried to pass a law to prevent a host of social issues from being contested in Federal courts.

Yes, I'd appreciate a link or at least the name of the bill you're referring to. Knowing RP, he has written an article about it and explained his position.

 

[jizzeater]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1161


That's his view on the Constitution. You can't say "he's pissing on it" because he has a different view than you.

Now, I disagree with him here as well, but I'm not going to say he's disregarding the Constitution to promote an agenda. After all, he's citing the Constitution when making his argument.

 

[TickTockMan]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00539@@L&summ2=m&

It's pretty telling that noted socially conservative theocon Roscoe Bartlett co-sponsored the original legislation in 2004:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.3893:

He'll *explain* that his position is states' rights, which is what Ron Paul does, but it should be clear to anyone who pays considerable attention that he's tacitly making life easier on the theocons in order to appease his constituency and advance his pro-life agenda.

Okay. So where is it? Was it killed, is it law?

It is an asshole law, which I am sure would be unconstitutional to begin with. I am sure he knew that when it was wrote.

 

[White Eagle]

Oh, that sounds like it could be fun!



With gas prices as they are, most teabaggers couldn't even afford to get there in the first place.

That too!!!!!!!
More !!!! to make post longer!!!!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1161


That's his view on the Constitution. You can't say "he's pissing on it" because he has a different view than you.

Now, I disagree with him here as well, but I'm not going to say he's disregarding the Constitution to promote an agenda. After all, he's citing the Constitution when making his argument.

He's butchering the Constitution to make his argument.

The mere presence of the Bill of Rights establishes the principle that the Federal government is supposed to protect rights. The addition of the Fourteenth establishes that it is the task of the Federal government to extend individual rights over against the states.

His argument confuses telling states things they must do with telling them things they may not do. I agree with Paul (elsewhere) that any federal law which requires the states to spend their own money to follow it is an invalid extension of federal power; e.g. there can be no requirement for a local sheriff to assist government agents in tracking down marijuana growers. But requiring states to recognize individual rights imposes no cost.

 

[jizzeater]

The mere presence of the Bill of Rights establishes the principle that the Federal government is supposed to protect rights.

Only those rights enumerated in the Constitution. RP feels the SC has overstepped their bounds (or may overstep them in the future) and legislated from the bench.

In this article http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=444 he says:

"Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court."

But requiring states to recognize individual rights imposes no cost.

From RP's point of view, the cost is to the states in sovereignty and the ability of its citizens to govern themselves.

 

[TickTockMan]

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into some debate on Ron Paul, but I just think it's misguided for anyone who isn't a social conservative to support him. He has a lot of fantastic ideas, but he has an agenda.

There are better libertarians out there.

1) As the OP I consider it on topic still, just slanted a bit.
2) I still like most of his ideas, but this definitely changes my view of him.