An Unhappy Tea Party for Some

I, too, prefer coffee, but let me put some things in (libertarian) perspective.

One, taxes equals tyranny. According to reason, a real libertarian publication, unlike the Economist, Americans on average now work 103 days a year for the government. Back in the day, it was but a fraction of this. If we worked 365 days a year for Uncle Sam, surely that would qualify as some sort of slavery or indentured servitude; so when 20 days becomes 50 and when 103 days becomes 104, 105, etc., we are definitely creeping toward outright repression. I sort of laugh when someone who makes a good living is accused of greed when he or she prefers to spend their earnings on themselves and their families, but looters who expect and demand other people's money through federal redistribution are merely pursuing some form of liberty.

Two, the original Tea Party, of course, was about taxation without representation. In a sense, so too was the 2009 version when you consider that the debt Obama is creating will have to be paid by future generations.

Three, Republicans are being accused by MSNBC and other voices of the New Left for being hypocritical about deficits. There's definitely some truth to that. But then so are the Democrats - they complained about the debt Bush created due to Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're purposely looking the other way when three times as much debt is underwriting Obama's social re-engineering agenda. Besides, if my wife were to complain that I spent too much money at Tommy Bahama, does that mean I don't have the right to criticize her for losing our life's savings after a weekend in Vegas?

Four, Texas is Texas - it's always been some other country. Perry's talk of seceding from the union is sort of silly, of course. But then, would Texas merely be exercising their "right" to self-determination? Would it be any different than Quebec or the former Soviet republics? Just asking.

Five, liberals need to stop accusing everyone to the right of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright of being fascists. It shows two things - how radical liberals have become when they seem to believe that anyone opposed to them are instead embracing a totalitarian ideology, and how liberals have no clue that fascism (a socialist economy and big government) has absolutely *nothing* to do with libertarianism and conservatism.

>>taxes equals tyranny.

Are you serious? John, could you PLEASE describe, once and for all, what kinds of infrastructure you want in a ultramodern democratic society, and how you intend to go about getting it? Tyranny? John, in a democracy, you ARE the government. What part of that don't you get?

It reminds me of Jon Stewart's comment after watching various Fox clips in which pundits talk about Obama's "tyranny." He paused, looked pensive, and quipped, "I think you're confusing tyranny with losing." And what part don't you get about the fact that Obama has been lowering taxes for most Americans?

And I think you're confusing tyranny with A) not getting your way in a democracy, and B) whining way too much about the services you and others have enjoyed.

As for Obama's deficits, I agree they're too high. Do you believe McCain was going to shrink them...?

As for your bringing up Bill Ayers again, I think it shows you yourself have become so polarized that you see all liberals in that light. I have not heard you complain about people at this week's tea parties who had signs depicting the current president as Hitler; the current president slashing Uncle Sam's throats; or the current president performing oral sex on the Saudi king. This is always seen as treason when done to a GOP president, but it gets no comment from someone like yourself in this political climate. I find that telling.

But stick to the first point for now, John. Tell me more about this tyranny, and whether you want quality infrastructure or a third-world society. Tell me the truth about how America really lines up globally in terms of tax burden.

John Galt - Ayn Rand is dead and so is her Objectivist drivel. What can one expect from someone who wrote something proudly titled "The Virtues of Selfishness", which became the rapine intellectual center of the Right-wing, using that in defense of funneling all wealth into fewer and fewer pockets. As far as Texas, we should give it back to Mexico considering that it gave us the diseased George W. Bush.

Rob, no one on the Left has any business criticizing anyone for "bringing up Bill Ayers again" because (a) Obama & Co seem to be shimmying down his not-so-primrose path of ideology and (b) Obama & Co have now gone on record as classifying virtually anyone who disagrees with them as potential terrorists (ironic, of course, considering the type of fun & games the Ayers crowd formerly favored).

I'm glad you agree that Obama's deficits are too high, or that Bush's were, or WHATEVER. The point is, whatever bad fiscal path we were on, now we are absolutely HURTLING toward destruction. John's "Tommy Bahama" analogy, above, is apt.

As for the "treason" against George Bush--I didn't see too many tears shed over that by the Left (including David just characterizing him as "diseased"). The only thing "telling" about this is that there are always a few on the Right who will attempt to be as crass and vulgar as multitudes on the Left have been for eight years.

Again, I pose this question. When is the last time a liberal speaker on a college campus got shouted down, drowned out, forced to leave? The Left, whether you care to admit it or not, has been characterized by a hateful lack of civility. Witness our own David on this site; prime example.

A lecture on dead ideologies from the resident Workers of the World Unite toolbag. Unbelievable. Funny how I was criticized several months ago for using the word "drivel," yet the leftists on this site apply it at will - see David's comment above and especially Earl's hate-filled take on the Tea Party.

Rob, I'll reply to your comments above when I have the time and stomach to do so; or perhaps we can have a civilized chat over the weekend.

Diane - You seem to forget that Bush got a free ride early in his fraudulency as the nation gave him a measure of doubt that he was the buffoon he later proved to be. Once he led us into Iraq, all bets were off. Once you do something that stupid and lie about the reasons in an effort to justify their criminal actions, you get what you deserve.

The Right on the other-hand, was in full attack mode from the moment Bill Clinton (a proven leader despite his wanderlust)took office and it seems that even having been smacked down in November, they have mounted a full blown attack against our present leader whom they somehow think they can admonish for not acting like Bush. If you can proudly stand in defense of the previous regime having learned how despicable they really were, then the disease characterized by the personage of George W. Bush must be catching.

Ha ha that's a good one; or rather several good ones, David. You are ALWAYS good for a laugh. Yup, going into Iraq was just stupid! There was absolutely no valid reason! Why, nobody thought it was a good idea, especially any Democrats! Yeah. And Bill Clinton ("a proven leader") -- ha ha... proven by whom? To lead what exactly? Just because YOU liked him doesn't make him a "proven leader" any more or less than George W. Bush.

And again, you just can't seem to wrap your brain around the point, which is that no matter which side is in power, or out, the Left continually amazes with its ability to dole out nasty, hateful, uncivil rhetoric. A brief tour back through your previous posts would be instructive in this, David. Then choose anyone else's posts and compare. See if you can figure out the difference.

Oh, and I haven't seen anyone calling for Obama's assassination, but that type of rhetoric seemed perfectly acceptable to the Left just a few short months ago, when a different person was president.

Diane - You are a trip.

Diane wrote the following: "...the Left continually amazes with its ability to dole out nasty, hateful, uncivil rhetoric." Unbelievably true. I watch MSNBC; I sometimes peruse the Huffington Post and Daily Kos; and of course I read select blogs from this site. I would estimate that roughly eighty percent of the content is nothing more than some combination of hate, hyperbole, and personal attacks.

Why does the New Left expend their energies launching nasty counteroffensives against conservatives, and to some extent libertarians, rather than defending Obama's record?

I'm going to take the liberty of answering my own question: because Obama can't be defended. To wit:

* Obama is a habitual liar. Before the close of his first day as president, Obama signed an executive order prohibiting lobbyists from holding high-ranking administration positions. Two days later, Obama granted some sort of waiver by naming a Raytheon lobbyist named William Lyon to be the Pentagon's second in command. As a presidential candidate, one of Obama's promises was to sign non-emergency bills into law only after the American people had at least five days to review. However, the $787B "stimulus" package, for instance, was signed into law in less than five days. Obama also promised no earmarks, yet he's already signed something like 9,000 earmarks into law.

* Obama is spending like there's no tomorrow. Rob constantly points out that even Republican presidents, like Reagan for instance, failed to submit balanced budgets. Very true. However, no previous president, Republican or Democrat, can be compared to Obama. The guy is on a spending bender. He's *tripled* the national debt. As I wrote in a previous comment, "...if my wife were to complain that I spent too much money at Tommy Bahama, does that mean I don't have the right to criticize her for losing our life's savings after a weekend in Vegas?"

* Obama has redefined the imperial presidency. To be fair, Obama didn't "invent" the imperial presidency - previous presidents have bypassed Congress, for instance, to pursue foreign policy objectives, usually when the deployment of forces is involved. But the extra-constitutional actions vis-a-vis the private sector is something new altogether. Obama is forcing TARP money down the throats of banks and other institutions that don't even want it.

* Obama has turned foreign policy trips into guilt trips. It's perfectly acceptable for the president to be critical of America, but not when he's representing the country abroad. The president should instead be representing the best of America while making improvements behind the scenes.

* Obama has assembled a cabinet of tax cheats, lightweights, and second-stringers from the Clinton administration. Hillary has zero foreign policy experience - she shouldn't be Secretary of State. Panetta has no business heading up the CIA. Geithner didn't do his patriotic duty of paying his taxes in full, yet he heads up the IRS. This isn't exactly the Dulles brothers and Richard Nixon. Or Schultz and Weinberger and Bush. Truly weak.

I have to think that the liberal media and the millions of Manchurian Candidates supporting Obama eventually won't be enough; at some point, the guy's record, or lack thereof, is likely to catch up with him.

Galt - Now you have out-tripped the trip. What can I add that would make what you've said any more damaging to your credibility.......Nothing! Thanks for doing the job for me.

No David, thank you for confirming the point I made - liberals want conservatives and libertarians to embrace Obama (or something like that), yet they won't make the case *for* Obama. Instead, liberals resort to personal attacks.

I neglected to include a sixth bullet point in my previous comment. According to recent reports, Obama has stepped up domestic wiretapping efforts. Probably related to this is the HUAC-like watch list of alleged right-wing extremists his Department of Homeland Security is putting together. Imagine a conservative Republican president ordering someone from his cabinet to generate a watch list of left-wingers. Think of the uproar in the liberal media - banner headlines in the New York Times, MSNBC interrupting its scheduled programming of catching online predators in the act. Think of the violent protests.

Galt - Keep digging, its your hole. I can sit here all day and watch your donkey show.

John keeps making valid points, and David keeps offering... nothing but nonsense. Nonsense, and to use his own words, "the same tired dogma."

John, you really need to read some books like The Hunt for the President or Blinded by the Right to see a little documentation of the absolute bile that has been coming from the right wing since the election of Clinton. Sure, many liberals cross a line, but you seem to think it's the domain of one side. That shows some blindness on your part.

Re John Galt's comment about self-determination, the point that Jonathan was getting at isn't that no one has the moral right to hope for self-determination. His point was that you can't claim to love America truly and credibly while supporting attempts to break away from America. They do that in Texas, they do that in Alaska, and then they claim to love America; and they get away with it, as long as they claim to be conservatives. As for the liberals who worked to free the slaves and who worked for women's suffrage and various other unpopular causes, the secessionists dismiss these people as evil and anti-American. And you can't seem to work up any sense of sadness or irony over that.

Bile. Well of course it's not the domain of purely one side. However, one side has elevated it to an art form. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that determination.

As for claiming to love America while supporting attempts to break away from it. Not sure anyone was actually making credible attempts to break away from it. However, Rob, liberals need to read their history. This is the United STATES of America. It was supposed to be a federation of states -- "state" being used in the nation-like term. Certainly you can love what the USA is supposed to be while actively agitating for it to BE what it is supposed to be. There is no contradiction there.

And speaking of history books... uh... it was the "liberals" who worked to free the slaves? Do you really want to go into the beliefs of the people who were successful in getting rid of slavery? Because there would be virtually nothing there that looked like today's liberal agenda of crazy ass spending and anything goes social engineering.

I must confess that I am no expert on who worked for women's suffrage, but I know damn well that many "unpopular causes" have been, and to this day still are, fought for by conservatives. (Miss California, anyone?)

Ever since the U.S. was founded, people in power have been trying to get more of it by centralizing functions that were never meant to be centralized, but were reserved to the PEOPLE and the STATES. The judiciary has done a wonderful job of botching this up, finding untold legal precedent where there is none, and teaching all of that crap to law students to perpetuate the wrong. However, the Constitution does stand still, and anyone can access it and see what is supposed to be--what is truly the law of the land.

States' rights is a huge and valid issue. The South during Lincoln's time had the legal high ground, if for immoral reasons.

Diane - I just love watching Right-wing dogma wonks try to put their twisted ideologies into some sort of formulation that would have them somehow jive with the spirit of The Constitution. Its like trying to squeeze the idea of multiple unprotected sex partners into the teachings of abstinence education. Keep up the entertaining work, it can't be an easy task.

Diane, I suspect I know where you're going with your denial that liberals/progressives freed the slaves. I'm sure you think old-fashioned conservatives did it through their faith in the Bible. Wrong. As Frederick Douglass said:

>>In prosecuting the anti-slavery enterprise, we have been asked to spare the church, to spare the ministry; but how, we ask, could such a thing be done? We are met on the threshold of our efforts for the redemption of the slave, by the church. and ministry of the country, in battle arrayed against us; and we are compelled to fight or flee.

Read the whole speech here:
http://www.library.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2945

And once you do, you'll quickly retreat to your, "Well, all of us are imperfect and fallen" retort that you employ after I continually destroy your view that only liberals are fallen.... Sheesh...

Oh my gosh Rob. You could not possibly "continually destroy" my view that only liberals are fallen since I HAVE NEVER SUBSCRIBED TO THAT VIEW. Please quote me on that "only conservatives are perfect" line because I really don't recall using it. Uh, ever.

It is completely disingenuous to say that "liberals" freed the slaves, period. Particularly in light of the fact that what the word "liberal" means today is a far cry from what it might have meant then, which point I think I made. I'm not sure what you mean by "old-fashioned conservatives" since again these terms had vastly different meanings then, than they would now. There have always been people who have tried to twist the Bible to their liking. There have been others who have rightly embraced the grace depicted there and tried to project it into their world. And yes, quite a few of THOSE people had quite a bit to say about ending slavery.

However, I also pointed out that state's rights were a very valid issue. Lincoln vastly overstepped his bounds constitutionally speaking. That is not a racist statement; it is a legal one.

Rob Asghar is...

[Cut to camera 2]

...the DESTROYER!

Diane: 1) Who did free the slaves?
2) Do you seriously believe you don't act as though liberals are a great evil and conservatives are a great boon to society?

The answer to question one is fairly complicated as I'm sure you're aware; I will be happy to revisit it, but not tonight when I was just making a quick trip in to see what's up on this site (and it's a good thing I do--if it weren't for John, David and me, there wouldn't be any discussion on here at all).

Question two... hmmm... do I act that way? Some of my best friends are liberals, and that's not a lie. So no, I don't think I "act as though" they are "a great evil." However, the political system/worldview they want to foist upon us all has many evil components, as has been shown historically. Again we come to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach. That is a nuanced difference which I'm sure you can appreciate.

As for conservatives being a great boon to society--well of course they are.

However, what is the point of this question? Because it is my observation that your standard grade liberal (David comes to mind) would NEVER say that some of his friends were conservative, since he has already clearly delineated his definition of a conservative, and who would want to be friends with THAT. And he would certainly consider his ilk to be a great boon to society.

So. What's your point?

My point, Diane, is that you appear to my eyes and ears to reflexively and militantly defend your political or religious group's superiority; and when I offer anything that contradicts what you want to believe about your group, you quickly say, "Well, we're all imperfect creatures, heaven help us." It makes you as slippery as a fish, honestly. As for David, he's certainly more biased against "the other team" than I think is approriate, but I don't lunch with him as often as I do with you, so I don't spend as much time worrying about his particular beliefs.

Also, what do you mean by this:

>>Some of my best friends are liberals... your standard grade liberal (David comes to mind) would NEVER say that some of his friends were conservative

Hmm. So you say conservatives like you are friends with liberals, but liberals are too mean to be be friends with conservatives like you? So you judge them for being unfriendly even while you befriend them? That's not friendship, that's one-upmanship.

Diane - You can take it as a certainty that my friends are not people who tolerate torture, support forced breeding by women, excluding 47+ million citizens from health treatment for the benefit of rich stockholders, invade countries to control their resources, try to force religion into the educational process, use the tax code to transfer wealth to the very rich and who use forums like this to further these crimes against humanity. If that is the conservative agenda, and it seems to be, you can count on my continued non-support and enmity.

Rob--NOW you got me. You're right. I can't have it both ways. Let me re-phrase.

I stand ready to be friendly with liberals. :) A few do indeed take me up on that offer. But the majority seem to be, AS A GENERAL RULE, unable to demonstrate either friendship, or even civility.

And thanks to David, for making my point so clearly.