Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Have the Neocons Systematically Infiltrated the Tea Party Movement?

Exactly since no one has been able to send me a link to a Tea Party held prior to 2009. They were apparently fine with republican based spending and dismantling of America prior to 2009 however

Nobody was fine with lots of stuff the republicans did in the case of spending or didn't do in the case of securing our borders. The better part of them are a bunch of traitorous criminals too. It takes folks a while to collectively get pizzed enough to do something and that is happening now, but all this "apparently fine" crap and "you're a neocon and I'm a REAL conservative" junk just adds to the polarizaion and will prevent any meaningful change from happening. Man up you nitwits!

===============

I believe JD has a strong shot at taking this election...for several reasons.

Buttttttt
If there is no "R" behind the name then it an automatic No-Go. Thats the song around here...right?

Not my song. I dissed Bush for spending and the border but roll my eyes at suggested complicity with 9/11. I believe elected democrats mainline wacko koolaide and are bad for the country. Most every incumbant needs to go and we need a constitutional convention badly. I'm sick of this nonsense and am looking for a real change this year. If it doesn't come, we're all in deep crap.

Anytime I hear the term neocon I have to suspect old fashion antijewish paranoia.

============

Even if it does happen Ricky,and things get done with the tough love and out of necessity approach, we're going to be in some serious belt tightening crap.

"Apparently fine" stems from seeing conservatives supporting the behavior I mentioned. You won't see me refer to anyone as a neocon, nor refer to myself as a conservative since I see no major differences between the politics of those referred to as neo-cons as opposed to those referred to as doctrinally pure conservatives. To take it further, getting to point B via the path to the right isn't any different than getting to point B via the path to the left, so since conservatives and liberals alike wish to get us to point B I don't differentiate between those 2 groups either since both trains of thought are nothing more than a hybrid form of socialism/fascism.

Makes sense to me.

+1

And what would you like to see come out of a con-con? Perhaps Perot needs to run again since he was wanting a con-con, was anti-gun (I guess the 2A would have been deleted if he got his wish,) ex-military, extremely wealthy, and (most importantly) didn't have a little (D) after his name. As a result of those characteristics, he was the only 3rd party candidate to ever appeal to many conservative republican voters.

No doubt, but we'll be in for much worse without it.

Very dangerous, that. Look what happened last time we had one. They were sent to the convention to make a couple of tweaks to the Articles of Confederation, and they misused their authority to throw the entire previous constitution out and start from scratch. Could you imagine what kind of new constitution they'd give us if they had an opportunity to do that today?

Much better, therefore, to work simply towards forcing government to actually live by the restraints contained in the current Constitution. If we only did that, 98% of the problems that have plagued us since about 1913 would disappear. All we need to do is to clarify the Fourteenth, and repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and add one new amendment that simply states that the Bill of Rights actually means what it plainly says, as does the remainder of the Constitution, i.e., there are no emanations from penumbras.

You must not have seen Bush's poll numbers. Did you really think that you alone were responsible?

Why? Is it your observation that most neocons are Jewish?

Perot? No.

One thing would be term limits on legislators. Also end their country club bene's. The criminals will not do it on their own. Another would be strengthening states rights and limiting the federal bureaucracy. A balanced budget amendment could help out about now. Campaign reform so we don't have millionairs and billionaires buying seats. Limiting presidential power. We don't need anymore kings. All in all nothing more than dotting some i's and crossing some t's to shape it up like the founders had in mind. It's nearly perfect already, but keeps getting trampled by those sworn to obey and defend it, and I'm not talking about our military.

I saw Bush's election numbers. Out of the 2 sets of numbers mentioned I would lean toward the election numbers carrying more weight.

And what punishments would you want for when those dotted i's & crossed t's are ignored? The absence of sanctions for violations (and looking at the founders with a little more scrutiny) has me thinking more and more things are exactly as the founders had in mind.

The hostilities of the 1860's, the round up & detention of American citizens in the 1940's, & the firearms confiscations during Katrina should get you to talking about the group mentioned in your last sentence as well.

Kerry would have been better?

Kerry=Bush=McCain=Obama As an example the only significant difference would have been much screaming and crying coming from conservative republicans in the summer of 2005 when imported demilled firearms parts were banned had Kerry been in. Instead there was support for the action or it was ignored by individual conservative republicans and the groups they belong to. As near as I can tell (and no one can point me to a shindig that would suggest otherwise,) mainstream conservative republicans never were too upset with republican spending (up to and including the fall 2008 bailouts) to organize themselves in to a Tea Party "protest."

Further (the last time I checked) Bush wasn't running against Kerry in the 2004 primaries either. Appreciative conservative republican voters rewarded him with their support in the primaries and again in the general election. It would be safe to assume that if by chance, Bush and the other favorites had been unable to continue to the 2000 general election and the nominee had ended up being Keyes, Smith, Buchanan, or Dornan, the republican general election vote tally that year would likely have been less than 5 million with the majority of conservative republican voters just staying home or voting democrat.