Rand Paul wins!

[Purge]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37217504/?gt1=43001

[Terran]

Rand/Ron Paul faction of the Tea Party are tolerable, however.... I think the Tea Party would be taken more seriouslly if Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck werent associated with it...Is there such a thing as a moderate Tea party supporter? Palin and Beck make the supporters look like loons... Reinventing history and facts for delivery impact.

[Publius]

Congrats to the younger Mr. Paul! Is there such a thing as a moderate Tea party supporter? Sure there is. Palin is just an opportunist. And what would be the fun in the media covering normal, reasonable-sounding people?

[TheSeasonOfFire]

Even though I don't agree with Ron and Rand Paul on all issues (though some stuff I think they are dead on about), they always conduct themselves as intelligent, respectful, honest guys. We need more people like them, regardless of party affiliation to come around. Palin and Beck can suck it.

[Terran]

Is there such a thing as a moderate Tea party supporter? Sure there is. Naturally I assumed there was... I was making more of rhetorical question/joke because of how the Tea party supporters are portrayed in the media. Its hard to support the Tea Party even if one agrees with some of their fundamental stances when these are the types of people seen portrayed in the Media. Obviously organizers can't fully control the types of people/loons showing up for protests, regardless these images do not help their cause. Exacerbating this public relations situation are the demographics of people who consider themselves part of the Tea-Party movement, 88% white, 60% Male (tending to be married and older than age 45). What I think is most damaging to this movement or Political Party is the apparent hypocrisy within the party. I think there are several factors that contribute to this. Essentially the group united under the stimulus bill, health care bill, and various other tax related issues. However the people that these issues resonated with were pretty different. Free Market Capitalists Anti-Government leaning people. Limited Federal Government (Stronger State Gov) leaning People. People that just hate Obama. Bigoted leaning people. Conservative Republicans. Conservative Libertarians. This has caused the composition of the movement to be varied resulting in the Tea Party's collective goals to appear hypocritical across their party. Examples of the different composition. The Tea Party Patriots The Tea Party Express Tea Party Nation The National Tea Party Federation They are unified by these three concepts: # Fiscal Responsibility # Constitutionally Limited Government # Free Markets Examples of apparent hypocrisy: They claim to want a Constitutionally Limited Government. They claim to want Fiscal Responsibility. Consider both these claims in how they relate to the collective actions of the movement. The Constitution establishes separation of church and state with the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Several groups and many participants within the Tea-Party claim that the USA is a Christian Nation. Some take this claim in the direction of legislature they want passed. Many are opposed to Gay Marriage, proclaiming that the Bible defines marriage between a Man and Woman and would like to see a law regarding this. So this is their religious belief, but this fundamentally violates their desire for a Constitutionally Limited Government(seperation church/state). Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court Furthermore if they are claiming their brand of Marriage as a religious belief and claim to want Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Gov. then they should want to do away with the current federal and state tax benefits/incentives for Married Heterosexuals. So Marriage in general would just be something handled by one's church of choosing. So other than a title essentially this practice of 'Marriage' would be fiscally and legislatively meaningless. This one Issue demonstrates how the bulk of the Tea-Party violates two of their three uniting principles. It is a clear double standard. There appears no desire in this movement to exercise any of their fundamental principles if it causes them inconveniences. Consequently the flavor of their rhetoric sounds like. We desire the freedom to impose our philosophical and theological principals to restrict the freedom of others who do not share our philosophical and theological principals. Their adherence to these stated principals is like: EvilNed advocating for Communist reform under the banner of: # Fiscal Responsibility # Constitutionally Limited Government # Free Markets This all being said I feel compelled to briefly differentiate Ron/Rand Paul from the apparent collective movement. Ron/Rand Paul seem more interested in things like the Federal Reserve and the Constitutionality of various taxes and the resulting use of funds. When it comes to the Gay Marriage Ron Paul "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." ... Additionally Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. When it comes to the current/potential tax benefits that these unions have He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage. The recognition of marriage would be left to individual states. At least he sticks to his principals ... Essentially a Federal gov with very limited powers with the State governments covering everything else. To bad he's getting associated with all these crazies

[Publius]

Its hard to support the Tea Party even if one agrees with some of their fundamental stances when these are the types of people seen portrayed in the Media. Yeah, but that pretty much boils down to it being hard to support any political movement. Because pretty much any political rally you care to go to, whatever part of the political spectrum, will have some loons carrying outrageous signs that you can single out. Most of the ones you show, for example, are on the tame side compared to a lot of the ones here.

[3pidemiC]

Wait...he's against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? WTF?

[darth los]

Wait...he's against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? WTF? What do you expect? They're motto is "I want my country back". They'd love to take it back to where i was considered 3/5 of a man. Good luck with all that.

[Exatreides]

Yeah, that was a bit of a blunder. Right after he wins he gives something golden for the dems to use against him. I hardly remember any pro health care, obama rallies with people holding up signs comparing leading republicans to Hitler, referencing god ect. However if you can find any, please share.

[darth los]

Yeah, that was a bit of a blunder. Right after he wins he gives something golden for the dems to use against him. I hardly remember any pro health care, obama rallies with people holding up signs comparing leading republicans to Hitler, referencing god ect. However if you can find any, please share. This is despite the fact that the biggest expansion of the federal gov't and national debt in history happened under the previous 8 years of republican rule. Gee what do you think the big difference is?

[JDFP]

This is despite the fact that the biggest expansion of the federal gov't and national debt happened under the previous 8 years of republican rule. Calling Bush a "Republican" is in name only, you won't find many of us claiming him as our own. Funny though, people complained about him being too extreme and then voted into office the most radical liberal president the nation has ever had. Ah, the swinging pendulum in action! I don't care for extremists in either category -- extreme leftists like the current administration or some of these Tea Party whack-jobs either. The GOP is my party and while I'm excited that this November is going to be a celebratory season for we Republicans, it's time to remember that there is no room or place for silly juvenile extremist dreams (on EITHER side of the political spectrum). We already had that happen this last presidential election in electing a radical and it's caused our country great strife (and will cause even more). We need to take a deep breath and try to get back on track. Anyway, no radicals for me... I'll stick with my current game plan (see signature below). j.p.

[Terran]

Calling Bush a "Republican" is in name only, you won't find many of us claiming him as our own. I agree to the first part. People that I have met personally, who voted for the guy, still adamantly defend Bush. Any politician that I know of, has obvious blunders, various geopolitical/national missteps, and outright lies(some politicians more than others). But if these events/issues are brought up in passive discussion these people get irrationally hostile, selectively accusatory, and overly defensive. The tone and reaction these people is hilarious because it sounds like textbook buyers remorse. Person 1: "I just bought this great car" Person 2: "Hmm I wouldn't be to sure of that. Nearly all over the world that car is collectively thought of as the worst car in current memory. The only car I know of that was worse was before I was born and it had no seats available and practically at any given time the car could spontaneously explode" Person 3: "You are so ignorant!""Dont you know that this car was designed by really intelligent people to be the best car ever!" "Whatever your an idiot! this thing is a limited edition and in the future will be undeniably thought of as the greatest car ever" In regards to the Imagery of the various protesters and nutters ...I am preparing what I consider a pretty elaborate post that I hope to put up as a new thread later today....stay tuned kiddies!

[darth los]

In regards to the Imagery of the various protesters and nutters ...I am preparing what I consider a pretty elaborate post that I hope to put up as a new thread later today....stay tuned kiddies! Well, I'll put it like this. Silence is complicity. Example: If you're walking with a group of people whoare holding up signs that say "i hate n***ers" written on it and you are fully aware of it then my friend you are associated with them. Silence in an instance like this is the same as saying what's going on is o.k.

[shootemindehead]

They're some real worrying people in that picture.

[TheSeasonOfFire]

All the people I know who supported Bush magically became Independents this year.