TEA PARTY: The Documentary

"This is not the beginning, it's a continuation!"*

(*that was on hiatus from 2000-2008)

In other news:

http://www.forlibertymovie.com/catalog/

Independent filmmakers and future Free Staters made this docu about the RPR.

I need to get it because I imagine I'm in it somewhere.

Other other news:

It's a shame Rand Paul didn't learn much from his pops, you hear his bullshiite about the Guantanamo inmates?

No, what's he saying?

http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2009-11-20.mp3

^That's Friday's episode of Free Talk Live. They talk about it at the beginning of the show.

It's on the homepage with a description on the left hand side for download. It'll be on the homepage another few days.

www.freetalklive.com

Hey, man, thanks for the links. I'm listening right now. I'm digging this Ian fella.

Approve.

I listened to the part where they discussed Rand Paul and the Guantanamo detainees and it just made me think of what a failure the two party system is. Libertarians tend to vote Republican because for them it's "the lesser of two evils" but the neo-cons who control the Republican party these days could really care less about libertarian principles when they don't serve their needs (the guy in the mp3 called them "wolves in sheep's clothing). That's why the party's base is so dismissive of Ron Paul—for the same reasons Democrats are so dismissive of Ralph Nader, they're those rare politicians who are motivated by principles rather than campaign contributions. (note: I think they're both wrong on many issues and I would never vote for either, but I respect their intentions)

Concerning Guantanamo detainees, I think that represents an absolute failure on Obama's part. Dissolving that place was a key campaign promise and he's had almost a year to get it done. I agree with the one guy in the mp3 who says "give them credit cards and send them home." The whole process was too shady to assume they're guilty of anything, and even if they were guilty of something, we've been so injustice to them it would be hypocritical to put them on trial. The way I see it, if Obama were to let these guys go it would greatly pacify the Muslim world.

I stopped listening when the guy from Oklahoma suggested civil disobedience as a means to eliminate traffic court.

Oh, and about the "teabaggers" (hehe), their movement only existed because Obama wanted to create all these public health care forums before starting the legislative process. His way of "reaching across the aisle." He shouldn't have given those idiots a chance, he should have shoved health care through congress the way Bush pushed through his legislation. It's not like he convinced any Republicans to support his plan.

Call in some time! The premise of the show is, if you call in, you get on the radio (provided you actually have something to talk about). Monday thru Saturday, 7-10pm EST.

And yeah, Ian is awesome. The way the show kinda works is you start off listening and think Ian is crazy and Mark is rational, and slowly come to believe just the opposite. (Not so much that Mark is crazy, but that his small-gov't views are irrational).

I just downloaded this episode, and can't wait to listen to it tonight. Check out the second item in the description, it sounds like it would be right up Alexa y tu's alley.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2009-11-25.mp3

Wednesday, 2009-11-25: Blackwater Assassinations in Pakistan / The So-Called Libertarian Glenn Beck / TV News Frustration / Market Protection and Unscrupulous Businessmen / Sociopaths Absent Government / Rupert Murdoch / Continental Congress / Six Horrible Lessons from School

The way Bush 'pushed through' social security reform? It's amazing how the dems supported social security reform that never happened under Clinton, and opposed it even being discussed under Bush...

If the Obam's health care whathaveyou doesn't pass in this term, and he's voted out, you can bet the Repubs will come up with their own plan because they know its fashionable right now.

It's not about what's right, it's about what the politicians care about, and any system designed in such a way will perpetuate such problems.

Don't be flip, this IS a continuation...of conservatism's public flaunting of mental illness:

Is there even a moderate wing of the Republican party left? And if so what the hell must be going through their minds when they see these fruitcakes on their side?

Why, because Ron Paul is secretly a member of some counter-establishment KKK group that funded Hitler and that fights secret wars against the Free Mason groups that funded Stalin? Come on, I thought the conspiracy theory shit was something the Ron Paullites do!

Trying to scare people away from an idea by labeling it racist for no reason really makes me question your motives.

While anyone can laugh at the morons in that film, what that vid reeks of is 'Let's go out and find the dullest people who oppose us and laugh at how they talk for the sake of making ourselves look good!' It's more of the left vs. right bullshit that the individuals of the United States are sick of. People are starting to wake up to the fact that there's one party, half of it called the Dems, the other half, the Repubs.

You got me, aside from his opposition to civil rights for black people and publishing of a racist newsletter for 20 years I had no reason to point out that he's a racist.

Most people are dumber than pigshit, they aren't waking up from anything. The governemnt is the way it is because that's how the people actually want it, they just won't admit it to themselves.

BTW, that one-party stuff is horseshit, you don't have to look any further than the battle to fix our broken health care system to see there's still some difference. We have one entire party literally refusing to offer up anything other than obstruction despite the fact that we'll soon be looking up to Equatorial Guinea in terms of quality and efficiency of care.
If you're a fringe nutbag like Racist Prick then I suppose everyone who doesn't wish to cripple the government (99% of people) must seem the same; like how sane people probably appear to all be the same to Charles Manson.

I'm sorry that you have so much hate in you.

Pray for me.

I totally would...if I wasn't an infidel.

What a teabag might look like:

Possible Tea Party nominations!

...

Sometimes I dream of Palin/Beck 2012 being a reality. I seriously want that, because it guarantees the Republican party continues to be eat itself alive. The only real downside is the Democrats would win again, and although I see that as a gigantic step up from the alternative, it's still not a good thing. Democrats can't govern for shit; Republicans can govern but their agenda is disgusting.

I think I might get this DVD if they include a set of de-coder sunglasses for free...

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass from your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."

-PJ O'Rourke

What a great quote, it really sums up my sentiments regarding U.S. politics.

Btw, I never replied to your comment regarding Social Security reform. The reason the Dems were so adamantly opposed to even discussing reform under Bush was because it was right after the '04 election and Bush was bragging about how he was going to use his "political capital" to start the slow death of Social Security (okay, not quite in those words, but that's what he was proposing and everyone knew it). It's been a long time since the Clinton days, but if I remember correctly they were proposing minor changes such as increasing the age of eligibility. Remember that despite all this brouhaha over health care reform, Bush passed his own health care reform bill. It doesn't really matter what is reformed, it matters how it's reformed. Bush's bill was supposed to help drive down the costs of prescriptions and give certain people tax credits for some of their meds. I think it also included some tort reform. I have no idea whether it achieved its goals or not, but the point is that "reform" means different things for the parties. Going by your quote, if the Republicans say they're going to reform something it means that they're going to slash funding and relinquish government oversight. When the Dems say they're going to reform something they intend on blindly throwing money at it. Republican welfare is tax relief, Democrat welfare is a check.

[quote=RazorSharpGoing by your quote, if the Republicans say they're going to reform something it means that they're going to slash funding and relinquish government oversight. When the Dems say they're going to reform something they intend on blindly throwing money at it. Republican welfare is tax relief, Democrat welfare is a check.

When have republicans ever decreased the size of gov't (which is what 99% of them claim to support on the campaign trail). Bush increased spending at an astronomical rate (but so had the prezes before him — the growth of government is not quite as consistent, but close, to the rules which govern acceleration due to gravity. I remember in High School physics, people trying to grasp the concept that though the speed of a falling object is constantly increasing (until terminal velocity) it is its acceleration which can be more easliy measured in relation to its speed. Gov't's rate of growth (its acceleration) is almost always increasing, with minor limitations on its acceleration. Even when its not currently accelerating, its always gaining speed unless its de-celerating (if that's a word) meaning a steady acceleration is stilla gain in speed.

I can't think many historical instances in which gov't power has been reduced by gov't. Maybe during the Jefferson and Jackson administrations, and those were within a generation of each other. I've actually heard the case made that Jimmy Carter was the most underrated president in history, not because he didn't do some garbage stuff, but because he didn't do most of the garbage stuff lots of people do that's taken for granted. I think the purpose of the PJ O'Rourke quote, recognizing that he identifies as libertarian, is to point out that there's a group that falsly believes they can solve problems that they can't, called Dems, and a group that claims the other group is wrong, yet do everything they say they won't (like get elected and use gov't to solve the problems they claim gov't couldn't solve...reminds me of the line, "It's not fascism when we do it!" Not that I'd compare today's politicians to legit fascists, as there is a degree differetial, but the mentality is the same — those guys are wrong, but if we do what they're wrong about, we can do it right. Getting people elected to prove gov't doesn't work is an international pastime.

Bush passed plenty of business 'regulation' (restriction), but he's not seen as a 'regulator' because its not cool for republicans to be seen that way. They sell to people with capitalistic beliefs, whereas the democrats sell to those mostly with socialistic beliefs. There's much they have in common, but for the sake of maintaining an image, they're going to act out major differences, or use non-issues to obscure the reality (let's get everyone in a stink about health care so we can keep printing money!)

Not that health care is a non-issue, but what's the purpose of opposing taxation itself when you're forced to use a currency that a coercive monopoly controls? Even with important issues, those who 'frame the debate' always use distraction/fear/etc to steer attention away from the simplicity of the issue. I think this may have something to do with why there's an apathetic populus. Confuse people to the point where they don't care to know anymore, and they won't care to know anymore.

"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes." -Alexander Haig

But he should have known better, since gov'ts dont need taxes when they have printing presses.

I don't think Bush measured the size of government by how many dollars it threw around, but by how much power it exerted. For the neo-cons it's all about throwing cogs in the system to make it more inefficient. Partially because it supports their claims that government is inefficient at everything, and partially because they share your view that government is somehow inherently evil, so they prefer a disfunctional government over a working one. It's very Reaganesque. The best way to convince the majority to cut services which benefit them - such as Social Security, welfare, and environmental/economic oversight - is to bankrupt the system to the point where cuts have to be made. If you're measuring government in terms of dollars, this would appear to be massive growth, but if you're like Bush and Cheney and you measure the size of the government by the amount of power it exerts, they've actually succeeded in shrinking it. This is why the neo-cons view themselves as the ultimate libertarians, because they see government as functioning as some sort of liberty-limiting tyranny, destroying it by any means to them increases individual liberties. Also, the vast majority of Bush's spending (before his last couple months and the banking crisis hit) went to military expenses, which as I understand it, is acceptable to most libertarians.

Personally, I think the "Dems can't govern for shit" is true, but only because they have no solid platform. It's a broad, "take initiative to fight social and economic injustices" platform, which is difficult to turn into a solid plan. Since the Republicans focus more on destroying the government, and destruction is much easier than construction, it's easy for them to all be on the same page. All they have to do is cut taxes whenever possible and stall legislation whenever possible (unless it's their own, of course).