Koch brothers back away from tea party

Oh you mean PIIGS can you get anything right?

It’s - Portugal Ireland Italy Greece Spain.

Ok here something I posted to Indie on this –

As pointed out to you before - all of the countries of the EU have had neo-liberal governments in power during the last 30 years. Many political parties of the right and the left succumbed to neoliberal ideas.

In Greece the government that was in power just prior to the crisis (2004-2009) was the “strictly neoliberal” right wing New Democracy Party which used derivatives as a means of hiding the true level of their debts. In Spain the neo-liberal Peoples Party was in power from 1996-2004 (and created the conditions for that countries housing bubble) and was succeeded by an opposition party ‘of the left’ that followed many of its neoliberal ideas and as for Italy the right wing neoliberal Silvio Berlusconi has been in power for eight of the last ten years.

And Ireland before the fall was often praised for its free market/neo-liberal policies.

 

I stand corrected. I didn't know ireland re: more brits were so severly f'd up. Proves my point , once again , you folks just don't get it.

 

LOL but my dear RIP you don't have a point, what you utter seems pointless and clueless now i repeat can you actually produce a coherent reply to whats been said?

 

Remember the Marshall Plan? Will you once again come to US for handouts when you once again have screwed away your financial futures? LOL. Caped crusader. LOL.. Super mod? Ha.

 

RIP

Yes I know about the Marshall Plan do you?

It wasn’t about a financial sector crisis it was about being the aftermath of WWII, and it was the beginning of the cold war and the plan was as much about trying to stop the spread of communism as it was about economics.

Again I think you need to do a bit of studying.

Again I ask can you actually put forward a coherent reply rather than all this childish raspberry blowing?

 

Another foreign aid rip off on the US taxpayer's back.

 

Advertising dollars in Republican primaries are less important, because the voters are so extreme, so involved, and so enthusiastic that they do a lot of their own research online, and via radio talk shows, and from fundamentalist religious sources. Therefore, they are not so easily swayed by mainstream media advertising, which is highly effective with casual voters. If the pro-corporate dynasty Wall Street candidate gets knocked out before the general election, where is the Koch money going to go? How is it going to make a difference? It seems that their effective options have been greatly diminished.

Very true. The Democratic Party could rot from within, if it has no serious competition. Competition brings out the best in everyone and every organization.

Another variation of this scenario is that the South becomes a Republican one party state, while the rest of the US becomes a Democratic one party state. That gives rise to more rhetoric that the South does not need to be a part of the US.

 

No they don't. Liberalism and our current system cause more harm, and, I give examples of that constantly. It is a mainstream lie that Libertarianism would help all these evil companies. You support a system which allows the highest bidder to control American policy, just as it is now. Libertarianism is the only party that would take away Corporate government benefits. Leftist would ban corporate donations again, but it wont stop people from bribing officials.

I talk to you all the time about these issues. Odon II, and, others here. You're stuck in your ways, and will probably never realize that your way of life is disasterous to individual freedoms.

For example, you support the UK confiscation of firearms? 86% of the UK want that repealed now. In the meantime, you're probably wanting America to follow suite there, and on other issues too.

Like our Constitution, which you don't care about- but, is our founding document and the "Supreme Law of the Land." This is why you'll probably never understand Libertarianism. We want our freedom, and, you want freedom for government, and fake government "security."

People like you just believe everythings gonna fall apart without an ever-expanding government system, and that's not true. I've defended my beliefs to you multiple times. But you don't want to believe differently than you perceive.

 

RIP

Actually the US boomed on the Marshal Plan “During the years of the Marshall Plan, when much of the money European participants received was spent on U.S.-produced food and manufactured goods, the American economy flourished.”

And the US leant from that and one of the criticisms leveled at a lot of US foreign aid is that it is basically aid to American companies with the programs being tied in to the purchase of goods and services from the US.

 

25
As I’ve pointed out and explained many time right wing libertarian ideas would (and do) cause a great deal of harm to many people.

You make assertions that you never seem able to defend from criticisms and don’t seem to stand up well to scrutiny, please prove me wrong and point to where you believe you have successfully defended (in a rational and reasonable way) a right wing libertarian idea that I’ve criticized?

No again – right wing libertarians claim they would lessen corporate power but the policies they would follow would advantage such groups and hand more power to them –

Try - Free market = plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36
[FONT=&quot]
The problem is that right wing libertarians seem unable to defend there ideas from the charge that they would advantage wealth to the detriment of other groups.

[/FONT]

 

25

But you don’t ‘discuss’ or ‘debate’ you assert and then tell us we are “stuck in our ways’ for not just accepting you ideas without question. And you don’t listen for example see just below –

Can you actually point out where I have actually said that? I have pointed out that I used to be a member of a gun club and was a reasonable shot. I have said I’ve got no problem with hunting (and I love FPS games). But I have also said many times that I don’t feel so afraid for my life where I live that I feel I need a gun for protection and wonder why so many Americans are so fearful that they do.

This is hilarious – this was an online vote that was basically open to anyone anywhere that was willing to register – I’ve found US forums encouraging Americans to go and vote – and this is by a right wing paper that has a strong following amongst the fishing and shooting fraternity.

Did you really just accept the figure at face and believe it ‘truth’ about the UK?

This is getting a lot of play on American pro-gun sites but virtually nothing on British ones not even on the Daily Telegraph pages itself.

Which is over 200 years old – if you were sick would you look for a cure in a 200 year old medical book?

Try -

Tear up the US constitution?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=146334

What should be in a new US constitution?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=446249

I think I have a reasonable grasp of right wing libertarianism it’s just that I have many criticism of it that seem to point out that it would most likely make a bad situation worse and bring about much harm to a lot of people while rewarding greater power to wealth.

As pointed out many times before just shouting FREEDOM over and over does not address the many flaws in the right wing libertarian argument.

Again I ask point to where you believe you have successfully defended (in a rational and reasonable way) a right wing libertarian idea that I’ve criticized?

 

Karen

So you’re suggesting the extremists could self perpetuate at least for a while, knocking out the more moderate candidates early on so later there would only be extremist to vote for? That would be I think political suicide and a sad and bad day for US politics.

Thing is I’d hope that more sensible minds would step in (with financial backing) to stop that happening - getting the moderate base to go out and grab the party back. I mean I don’t think in general terms that businesses want an unelectable RP.

I’m not a supporter of the RP but a one party state would be terrible (and open to gerrymandering by the ruling party to entrench their position)

My hope would be reform so that the US political system could be opened up maybe with some type of proportional representation.

 

That's what I see and hear. While the most extreme GOP voters continue to get all their "information" from sources like Fox News and talk only to each other online and on talk radio programs, moderates continue to gradually change their voter registrations from Republican to independent or Libertarian, which will prevent them from voting in future GOP primaries. Something will have to reverse that trend before more pragmatic minds can prevail within the Republican Party.

The richest 1% of Americans could soon find themselves politically homeless, for all practical purposes. That would teach them a bitter lesson about the limitations of money, but at a high cost to the rest of the country.

The GOP has successfully achieved this in my state (NC), and it is a miserable situation.

Looking at a color coded map, the red states are currently the old Confederacy plus a few rural states out west, most of them with low population densities.

 

In any democratic republic, the ultra-rich have always had the huge problem that controlling 1% of the vote is politically worthless, and trying to buy an additional 50% is always a difficult undertaking. Money can buy a lot of votes, but that's a lot of ground to make up. If you start out with 40% of the electorate, buying another 11% is not so tough.

Maintaining a long-term coalition with the religious right has been the Wall Street / GOP strategy since the days of Reagan, but it's very difficult to deal rationally with a voting block that cares more about beliefs than facts, especially when a cultural divide is involved. The Wall Street crowd doesn't really understand the other side of its long-term coalition; it doesn't get the way conservative religious people think. I know some hardcore working class Republicans, and I know some business management people. They have nothing in common with each other. They don't really even speak the same language, on any kind of deep level. Looking back, it's hard for me to understand how that unholy alliance held together for as long as it did.

Once the Tea Party rose to prominence, fueled at the grassroots level by people who are not so religious, the wheels started to come off the party. Now the business leaders have to deal with two groups that it doesn't understand or relate to. They are in an impossible position.

If Wall Street wants to rebuild a 51% voting majority on a national level, they will probably have to give up on the working class and focus on the upper half of the middle class, speaking to them about financial prosperity in a way that they can understand it, and actually offering them something of financial value to themselves. They have played the abortion and patriotism cards, and ridden those strategies as long as they could. There's nothing more to be done with that, in my view.

I don't see any signs of that happening either. Wall Street leaders know how to talk about money, but they want to keep all the wealth concentrated within the top 1%. They will not shift strategies until it becomes painfully obvious that the old game plan is dead.

 

Karen

Thank you that was very instructive.

The feeling I’m getting is that it is not so much the economic ideas that are turning people off the TP’s but the methods and the bigoted, misogynistic and religious nature of some of their candidates.

Time and again I’ve meet those that while opposing the TP claim to be ‘sympathetic’ to some of its neo-liberal economics, and I scream WHY? Because to me they just don’t stand up to scrutiny and are as dangerous as the bigoted, misogynistic and religious views.

To me the support for the TP seems based in myths about America and its past, I can only hope that younger generations and new blood see these for the untruths they are.

 

In the past, Americans relocated primarily for economic reasons, which intermixed individuals with various backgrounds and promoted tolerance. This pattern has mostly come to an end, replaced by a strange form of voluntary segregation by political philosophy, which gives the Tea Party a long potential life as a regional party. I've seen this in action for several years, and now I've found a mainstream media article that supports my observations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/cities-americans-moving-escaping-154840318.html?l=1

In the state of Texas especially, this trend faces very strong opposition from its fast-growing Hispanic (Catholic) population, which votes overwhelmingly Democratic. They could swing Texas to a reliably Democratic state within five to ten years. This is a lesser problem for the GOP in most other Southern states, but still significant. That's why they support massive deportation of illegal immigrants, which is unlikely to happen. If they have a Plan B for dealing with that population, I don't know what it is.

 

That's not true. I've stated plenty of times why Liberalism is bad for our country. It extends government, which raises taxes. The average American spends more on government, than they do on their house. Yet, the Liberal and "Democratic" solution, is to milk the middle/working class, and create even more disparity, and, even more terror worldwide.

Libertarians on the other hand, support a truly fair and free society. The reason Liberals believe Libertarians are good for Corporate America, is because we want less regulations.

But we believe in strict liability (Unlike government today; ) For example, if Monsanto's GMO product cause cancer, one should be able to sue them for all medical expenses and reprecussions. This would be a major deterrent, which many companies like Monsanto and Government Contractors, are immune to, under the current system.


The EPA is another government agency that people are terrified of losing.
However, liability and the internet, can take care of envoirmental problems. We need some consumer awareness. The EPA takes set bribes, in the meantime allowing companies to continue these practices (Such as draining the great lakes for less than 200$ a year) In other words; Under a Libertarian system, if a company hurts someone or destroys their property, they are liable for major reprecussions, and that's unlike the current system aswell.

Shooting and hunting doesn't mean anything, when you think guns should be taken. I know this kid from London in one of my classes, and he said there's just as much violence. Gangs still get guns and otherwise, they'll just stab people. Guns are a way for a 125 lb woman to match up with a 300 lb man, and make it a fair match. There are alot of external/internal threats in America, and, the Second Amendment is extremely important with regards to freedom from tyranny. It's foolish to think government military and police can be trusted with guns, but citizens cannot.

Not only would we then have a massive threat of tyranny, we would also have to worry about heavily armed and violent mexican drug cartels, who stream over the border in caravans.

As I've said; It is the supreme law of the land, it protects us from over bearing government (or it wouldve if we wouldve followed it.)

I wonder if you've even read the Constitution! There's a quote here in America, "If it's not broken, don't fix it!" The Constitution provides us with Liberty, that no government today would. To suggest it should be taken away, to me is just not informed. If you take it away America would be a total police state. Again, we're already getting to that police state anyway, because the government doesn't follow the Constitution.

So, even though you said "new constitution," I think it would end up like the UN human rights, where they added a reversal in Article 29, which makes the government totally in control of when and if you can exercise your Rights; And that's why I don't think we should put faith on our Government to do the Right thing, when they already have a disasterous record of ignoring the Constitution as-is!

Again, that's your opinion, and your wrong. Government bailouts, benefits an, bribery is focusing the wealth. Lowering taxes and regulations creates jobs, and it allows capitalism to work. John Kennedy understood this very well. We shouldn't have a problem with people making money, as long as you're not ripping off the taxpayer, or harming anyone or their property.

This is what freedom means, and it would spread into our personal lives as well. You have the freedom to do what you want with your body, as long as you don't harm anyone or steal, you shouldn't be sent to prison.

I always rationally defend my beliefs. That's why I called you stuck in your ways.

All I believe is, we should live within our means, and follow our founding principles. These ideas made America the most prosperous nation in the world. Furthermore, our Constitution is our Founding Document. It is everything America is meant to represent. Every soldier and even Obama take an Oath to Defend the Constitution. Just because some of them are liars, doesn't mean the people willed this type of government- instead, people are very much manipulated by lies and American Media. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, and Libertarianism is the only party I know about, that would truly take away all this corporate power. Liberalism wants to make corperate bribes illegal again; But they have exsisted for a long time, even before the "corperate personhood" BS

 

"fewer regulations" is what brings this country to its knees, which is exactly what we have seen this decade. Powerful people need to be watched and regulated. This is not the first time nullified regulations have ruined the economy. Strict libertarianism would be a free for all, with the usual suspects raking in the dough and the rest of us suckin' hind tit.

Check out the yahoo article on the Pentagon's wasteful ways. It's absolutely outrageous.

 

The key isn't how many regulations but where and on who they are placed. As well as the loopholes available to those with enough money or political connections.

"Fewer regulations!"
"More regulations!"
"Too many regulations!"
"Not enough regulations!"

That is all rather pointless.

We (seposedly) have a mixed government. Meaning that if we put a Libertarian in office he can't go and abolish and rregulations on his/her own. But hopefully they would work the other parties and find compromises that would benefit us all.

A full on Libertarian government would not be a complete free for all either. Once again you confuse Libertarians with anarchists

 

25

TO REPEAT – you make assertions (you state) but you seem incapable of defending those statements from criticism - that is not debate.

Go read your post and what we get is assertion after assertion often on things that we have already discussed and for which there are many outstanding criticisms that right wing libertarians have refused to address.

Again the same shout of ‘freedom’ that we have covered many times and doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

The same old arguments about suing replacing regulation that we have been through hundreds of time before and would most likely give advantage to corporations.

The same old thing about lowering taxes that we have been through thousands of time before and which seem to have only ever increased the power and influence of wealth.

The same old gun arguments that we’ve covered countless times.

The same old Constitutional assertions…

And so on and so on…

No you do not, I have not seen it but please prove me wrong and point to it – as I’ve pointed out all the things above have been covered many times you should be able to point to at least one place where you believe you have put up a rational defense not just your assertion that you are right and others wrong I’m talking about rational and reasonable argument. Produce it.

And please don’t evade.