loony toons time again.

all day everyday.

Infiltrated? It seems the "Movement" has a pretty wide variety of people involved. It really is a great opportunity for a lot of people to get involved. The beauty of the Tea Party folks is that it is not even a "Party". It seems to be a lot of previously uninvolved people becoming involved & they are not locked into a certain segment of one party.

If the GOP cleans up it's act they will attract a good percentage of these folks. If not, they won't & a lot of wasted votes will be blamed on everyone except those responsible. The libs will rejoice, as RINO season will have been cancelled due to lack of participation.

One to watch is JD Hayworth vs John McCain in AZ. Some here have said he's (JD) damaged, but isn't McCain damaged, as well and a proven RINO?

Originally, the Tea Party movement was an angry reaction against globalist neoconism in the Republican Party, and Wilsonian progressivism in the Democrat Party, i.e., big government internationalism in both parties.

That's an impressive quantity of buzz-words and techno-babble!

All you really need to know is Neocon is a RP PC *wink-wink* word for Jewish bankers trying to control the world. Plus, it's a word simple enough to pronounce for those 60 percent of Paultards who don't have a GED equivalent as yet.

particularly when the Tea Party movement as we know it now is a reaction to Obama's pork/stimulus, cap'n'tax, health care takeover, record deficits and imminent, massive tax increases.


I don't see a lot of "get out of Iraq" or "surrender to the terrorists" signs at tea parties. Maybe you've been at a MoveOn rally by mistake, hawk.

Link to show

If anyone is intrested in seeing the entire 1/2 hour show, click on the link

no it was not. You seem to be incapable of ferreting out the truth about any issue Hawkeye.
Most of the folks in the Tea Party Movement are pizzed at hussein's spending and his dismantling of America. Thats it dude. Nothing in there about NeoCons, about Woodrow Wilson, or about your pseudo, albeit pathetic, political 'analysis'.

Hawk, figured your post would bring out all the Bush leg humpers.

Must be the nostalgia of all that deficit spending for the neocon world empire that gets 'em so worked up.


Now it's time to sit back and snicker as the 'good 'ol boys' tell us we're crazy to listen to a man who wants to eliminate the federal income tax at the expense of our world domination tour(or something to that affect).

Exactly! Please, hawkie (I love that term of endearment) don't let those that simply knocked your political thoughts out of the ballpark stop you from continuing your political analysis......please, continue! It's great entertainment.

Not saying you're crazy in the actual psycho sense, just saying your crazy because some of us think you actually believe this nonsensical drivel you throw out there.

If you think the current Tea party movement has anything whatsoever to do with RP, you're simply inventing absurdities to divert from the fact RP plays nothing more than a cameo role in the real life activities of those who actually can accomplish necessary tasks.

In fact, much of the Tea party leadership's concerns are focused on insuring the membership doesn't get tainted by the likes of the idiots who spammed polling lines and rode their bycicles to straw conventions for free hot dogs, cotton candy and pictures with a blimp.

It amazes me you think RP is anything but a mere footnote to a footnote in all of this. Good grief, man...get a reality check.

So Obama started the Tea Party??

Exactly the kind of logic expected from those with such limitations.

Was not ment for you, I am ignoring you remember?

May I make a suggestion? It's a little easier for us to follow who you b ignoring if you would simply follow what your leader has done before and simply start listing the ignored in your sig line. I find I swell with pride when I see my name on some of those special lists....

Sorry...you responded to my post. Silly me for thinking you didn't intend it for me.

It had more to do with Ron Paul and his message of limited government and spending than it did with the GOP and their message of 'more of the same'.

I dunno. I'm certainly no expert. I like tea pretty good. The green kind isn't as good and I have no love for the white tea. Seems like a bunch of folks were pisssed off at both major parties, mainly the liberals and the RINO wing of the Rep party. A lot of it seemed to center around taxes and it seemed very similar to a lot of those guys who were wearing tricorn hats to the Ron Paul rallies. Seems like a lot of the same ideas that Ron Paul has are embraced by the Tea Party people.

I've never heard much deep philosophical stuff linked with it. Seems like they just want less government and less money going to the government. I doubt too many of them are for our extended stays in foreign countries, mainly due to the expense.

It seems like to me if the "leadership" of the Tea Party movement gets overly concerned with keeping "untainted" that they'll be very similar to the two parties we currently have to contend with-all party and no positive action.

No, it is the Tea Party that has infiltrated the Republican Party and the RINOs don't like it. You'll see some try to claim Tea Party affiliation to save their skins, but this is a RINO hunt and it is going to take awhile. You don't just change a party over night.

Hey, professor.....Glenn Beck is on now and he's hammering D Medina about her 'troofer' stance.

This is what I was talking about in my earlier thread. No offense meant Hawk, but you got 2 of these things going right now.

Everything is not a conspiracy.

JM

Once again political naivete at work, confusing the national geopolitical interest with the "globalism" one government scare tactic, when what they really mean is Isolationism, a failed strategy that never worked and never will. The United States has, since it's inception had a hand in international issues and while I fully admit our track record also reflects political naivete (as in trying to turn tribal based societies into western-style democracies) any nation that has ever attempted isolationism loses out in the end. And BTW, in virtually every TP rally I saw on the news, there was clear and complete support for our war against Islamo-facism. So much for isolationists...jorge

that'll play well in Texas....back to single digits

Loony and toons? Those 2 things?

SteveNO....she's falling like a rock.

a troofer political consultant was a strange representative of the tea party folks anyway

Since you make that concession, I'll make one as well.


To an extent, I believe we do have to play a part in international affairs as well as have a military presence overseas. It's the part where we go overboard protecting every whiny piss-ant country around or let our not so intelligent intelligence departments stick their nose in the affairs of foreign countries.


Where we probably differ is to what extent we should be involved. In my opinion, we'd be a lot further ahead if we scaled back about 80-90% of our overseas efforts.

No doubt an opinion that is shared by most of the worlds dictators and jihadists.

Medina was asked if she believed 9/11 was an inside job. She said, essentially, that while many have raised some legitimate questions concerning that event, she has not investigated those questions, and has no position one way or the other. Beck gave the definite impression that he took that to mean that she was a troofer, which was absurd. It only meant she doesn't dismiss the possibility out of hand.

I have said the same thing many times over the years on this question. You cannot prove a negative, and considering the potential toward evil that exists among men in power, it is certainly within the realm of possibility. Who would have ever thought, after all, that the US Government would have performed the Tuskegee Experiment, where hundreds of black men who were diagnosed with syphilis were told they only suffered from "bad blood," and were never treated, because they wanted to have hundreds of bodies of men who died from untreated syphilis on which to perform experimental autopsies?

I guess we'll agree to disagree. As a believer in Social Darwinism, I don't believe in nation building unless it's in our national interest. The tough question is who defines "national interest". To me presently signifies do whatever it takes to keep our country strong and prosperous and kill our enemies. jorge

if you even insinuate the possibility it was an inside job, you are well on your way to kookery. jorge

Yeah, treachery among men in positions of power should never be considered. I guess we should just ignore the many warnings over the centuries from prominent Americans from the Founding Fathers, to Abe Lincoln, to Eisenhower, and uncounted others, then. As for me, I am always open to its potential among men in power, and will always look at evidence for or against it dispassionately.

I really don't believe that much differently.

I just feel we're better served maintaining our economic superiority, both home and abroad, than we are using those resources protecting the borders of allies fully capable of doing it on there own.


I think it was Isaac who recently posted a satellite view of both N and S Korea at night. The South was lit up like a Christmas tree while the North was a desolate blanket of black. Now why are we spending Billions of US dollars protecting the border for South Korea, who is prospering, against it's Northern neighbors who not only lack sufficient energy supplies but routinely lose thousands if not millions of it's citizens a year due to starvation?

+1

North Korea is not just a threat to South Korea. Surely you've seen that....it's been in all the papers.

we have about 30K troops in Korea largely as a symbolic deterrent, since the Norks know they can't invade without getting a full US reprisal, while the SoKos have more than 600K active duty and 4.5 million reservists, out of a much much smaller population.

Even though I was in the AF, I spent some time on a boat in the Sea of Japan staring at N Korea. They had junk then and I'm sure if I read a Jane's Weekly, they wouldn't have improved a whole hell of a lot.


In any event, 30k troops costs a hell of a lot of money. Especially when you figure we've been there for decades. I'm sure S Korea can make their own symbolic gestures and do it on their own dime.

Same goes for Japan if the North decides they want to test the waters.

30K is chump change in the big scheme of things especially when you consider the % of GDP we spent during the Cold War years and we didn't blink an eye or go broke either. NK has the CHICOMS behind them and we were there as a deterrent during the Cold War years. Surely you didn't object to that then? What is killing us are entitlements, big government, over-regulation and kookery over "going green". jorge

Only the ones that we're not funding this year.

Yep, all those things, plus maintaining a world-wide empire.

trips, you obviously don't grasp the military and political significance of that tripwire detachment. which doesn't really surprise me in view of some of the other blather you post on foreign policy questions.

Empire? we haven't the first CLUE on how to be imperialists. But like I said before (and you ignored) we spent a hell of al lot more during the Cold War years as a percent of GDP and it didn't even register. If it was up to isolationists like you, the Iron Curtain would presently be on the Rio Grande...jorge

A link to a site that I had never heard of before until recently called VBS.TV, and an expose of an inside view of N. Korea. Part 2 provides some excellent insight into the DMZ. Truly bizarre.

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-2-of-3

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-3-of-3

Like ancient Rome we have extended our power out past a reasonable return on investment. The real enemy is at home in the form of political corruption.

you have to have one of their RP glossaries, Jorge:

empire = all foreign allies

unconstitional = any policy they disagree with

Neo-con = anyone who subscribes to the defense policies that won the cold war and doesn't favor isolationism

criminal suspect = captured al Quida combatants

torture = fratboy hazing of one of the above

Hawk, the one HUGE reason I don't buy into conspiracy theories is because a conspiracy of that magnitude would be impossible to keep secret. If it was under the GOP, the Dems would spill the beans for the political capital they would gain, and vice-versa. If you start with the premise that most politicians are scum, you'll understand that there is no way that 9/11 could be an inside job because someone would tell all.

yup...jorge

+1 on that. The problem I have with people who are always spouting off about big government conspiracies is the fact that their beliefs are predicated on the premise that the government is competent enough to successfully execute a large conspiracy. The government isn't competent at anything... except being incompetent.

Hey Jorge is there over 200 US military installations throughout the world today? Ya think they are all necessary or could a good percentage be cut back?
Also if they serve as a tripwire, who is out there to trip all those locations?

Plus one.

Absolutely, and use those monies to build back our offensive striking power by building our Navy back up from it's current, pathetic 230 plus ships. Don't know about that 200 number though, but where do you suggest we cut down? jorge

lol

Good one. Now let's try a Neocon version.




Lady's guild = anyone with a brain

Bush = conservative

Constitution = anything bendable or that can be ignored

Threat = anyone who doesn't live below the Mason Dixon line

Evening news = Rush, Hannity or O'reilly

Foreign nationals = terrorists

Conservative = Evangelical

Trade agreements = sign with any 3rd world country that won't be able to buy our products in return

Budgets = smudgets. If Dems don't need to worry about them, neither do we




lol

Should start a whole Neocon to English translation thread

[b][/b]

And I'm still waiting for a definition of a neocon from the isolationists crowd, but from the above diatribe I doubt I'll ever get it. jorge

Easiest way for me to describe one would be -


Take a liberal, sprinkle in a dash of irrational fear and then add a desire to force our nation building efforts on the rest of the world and you're pretty close to the definition.

Common sense will never dissuade the warmongers.

Warmongering is as much of a sickness as liberalism.

There's a reason why war gets away with being the health of the state.

There's a mentality which exists that worships war,...and a government can transfer that worship to itself by engaging in it.

Don't know what are where to cut down but Steve_NO said those installations serve as tripwires. So was wanting to know just who is out there to require that many locations. Mayby its like everything else...once ya got em its hard to do away with any of them.

Agree with a big buildup of the Navy. The more ships and boats the better. Ya go where and when the need arises.

But like I asked, who is out there that requires all these installations around the world...on a day in day out bases?

Definition:

A NeoCon spends like a liberal, creates more government like a socialist, subscribes to a evangelical approach to citizens private lives, rationalizes empire building under the catch-all "national security", and doesn't care if he votes for a liberal-socialist as long as the candidate of his choice sports an "R" after his name........


Casey

Don't worry, we'll be leaving Korea soon enough. Before too long the Chinese will ask us to before they buy some more of our AAA rated bonds.

Now that's putting it in perspective......



Casey

Best definition I've seen!

A great many of these "trip wires" have a life of their own, they are in effect pork, no freakn Kobe beef. Trip wires are relatively cheap. Maintaining 35,000 troops in S Korea for over 50 years indefinitely is not.

I posted a link to an inside video essay of N Korea on my earlier post. These poor people live in a 1950's bubble where the threat of war is constantly presented by the state run media, filtered through one man. There are many in the U.S. that live in this same bubble. In that some profit from their beliefs does not justify them.

You forgot one part.

When one speaks of arming everyone on airplanes and 9-11 was an inside job, I don't think folks care or listen much to one's political ideas or leanings thereafter.

It's a RP clue for those still wallowing in their WTFs after his abyssmal showing in 08!!

Couldn't agree more......

Well if that's the case none of it fits. Hawk had a much more cogent, less emotional and intellectually sound description a while back, but if this is the best you have, I'm glad you cleared that up. jorge

This is a common misconception. It stems from the erroneous conclusion that since large scale conspiracies (e.g., Watergate) have previously been uncovered, therefore all large scale conspiracies will inevitably be uncovered.

The holocaust of the Jews, for example, was a vast state-sponsored conspiracy that likely would have been kept from the German people, and the world, had not Germany lost the war, and their secret exposed. Had they won the war, it would likely have been rumored to have happened, but those who advanced the possibility of that rumor being true would have been dismissed as cranks.

Remember, the bigger the lie, the harder it is to credibly refute.

It's only a common misconception for those who have very little common sense.

I posted a link to video that defined neocons.

There you go.

Yep.

I don't even want to get into this dissussion. I am not a "Truther" and as such, have no desire to defend a position I don't hold. I would like to make two points however.

First, why would Democrats necessarily be privy to information that would convince the general populace that 9/11 was an inside job to the extent that they would do anything? And as an addendum to the question, what could they do if it did? We already know the Federal Government is extremely corrupt yet what is anybody doing? Oh yeah, we vote...

Second, if a Conspiracy is being discussed and is of general enough knowledge to have a widely-known term coined which describes it, how could it be secret in the first place? Going back to point number one, those in power don't have to keep secrets if nobody can do anything about it.

Same here.

I'll still listen but I agree I wouldn't want every hair triggered redneck and gangsta carrying a gun on board a pressurized tin can going 600 mph at 30,000 ft.

Wouldn't be prudent...

Nor do they have to if the secret to be kept seems so outragously preposterous that the vast majority would never believe it even after seeing proof.

That is the essence of the Big Lie theory, originated by Goebbels and further perfected by Stalin.

wrong....in this case, if there was a whiff of evidence beyond the bloviating of loons, the Bush hating press would have swarmed all over it.

troofers should read that popular science issue that utterly debunked the various troofer theories on scientific grounds. Like Rosies "fire can't cut steel" comment....that's about the general level of troofer paranoia and illogic.

I've only been looking into the claims of the "troofers" for a few weeks now (previously placed it all in the category of Big Foot, UFOs, and Nessy), but what I've gathered is not that any of them believe it was a conspiracy limited to one political party, but rather much more vast, presuming that both parties (and the popular press) are mere tools of the same conspirators.That claim, that fire cannot cut through steel, was what made me dismiss the whole "troofer" phenomenon from the beginning. I, like you, believed they were claiming that super heated fire from a crashing jetliner into a skyscraper could not cut steel. My reaction, like yours, was, "Friggen jetliners, filled with jet fuel, crashed into friggen skyscrapers, you nutcase!" What I didn't realize until very recently, however, was that this claim had nothing at all to do with the two towers that were struck by jetliners. It refers to building 7.

Until very recently, I was unaware that there were more than the two buildings that came down on 9/11, and I lived in New York at the time. Building 7 was on fire from burning ash, but had not been struck by anything substantial. It came down directly into it's own foundation, all sides collapsing simultaneously. Fires don't usually cause this in modern steel framed structures. This, at the very least, is suspicious, and should, at the very least, provoke questions.

Good grief...I'm so glad my kids aren't in any of your gym classes.

I was speaking theoretically and not about this specific instance. I was very clear in my post about that. Again, I have no interest in defending a position I do not hold, but saying the Truthers are wrong and saying that such a conspiracy could not be carried out are two different things. I beg to differ on the latter. And again, I am not disputing the facts in this case, nor the science of it, I am just saying that basing your argument on "Troofers" all being "bloviating loons" and a "Bush hating press" isn't the most sound method. For instance, an insane man doesn't make a good witness as he can tell you an absolute truth, yet he is not credible. That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth, just that nobody will believe him due to his past history. Secondly, just stipulating that the press does hate Bush merits stipulation that the same press is owned by the big boys. All such an entity would take in order to silence it is the flow of cash ending. Your stipulation cannot be satisfactorily proven in an objective manner. Mine can.

So while such a conspiracy may not have been carried out, it doesn't mean that it would have been impossible to do so.

Precisely.

Walking on water is not impossible either.

Twelve men once observed it happen.

Personally, I think that is a bad choice of analogies for a believer to make.

Not once, but twice and involving two individuals, the latter, admittedly, only partially successful, but successful nonetheless.

You guys must be talking about that Chris Angel illusion. More than 12 saw it though,I believe.

Let him try it from a randomly selected location from a boat in the middle of a lake. Then I'll be impressed.

Then stop calling me a NEOCON because it isn't even close to what I believe in. jorge

The key identifier is giving casual lip service to social, economic, and monetary, conservatism, so long as pursuing these in no way interferes with an aggressive foreign policy of pursuing worldwide military and political hegemony.

"lip service" Now there's a quantifiable measure of effectiveness. Your lst sentence continues to reaffirm your inability to discern the differences between the national interest and political-military hegemony for the sake of power. On more than one occassion I've expressed my opposition to nation-building, the Peace Corps and any other altruisitic endeavors that have nothing to do with geopolitics. As to the "war monger" issue it's beyond contempt. Implying that some of us like war for the hell of it or based on some tongue in cheek comments I've made regarding "glory" is ridiculous. Obviously I overestimated some folks' abilities to tell the difference. jorge

Not to get off-topic or put you on the spot, but what possible opposition could anybody have to the Peace Corps? Honestly, I don't know much about it. I've always just thought it was a bunch of folks from this country who volunteered to go to Third World locations and try to help people better themselves. I'm being neither sarcastic nor flippant when I ask if there's something I should know about them?

Here's my take on the Peace Corps and it's negative effects I personally witnessed. You have people living in abject poverty out in the bush somewhere and I've never seen such happy people, at least in Africa. Enter the Peace Corps with well intentioned motives and they tell these people how much better they can be if they get involved in the political process (by US standards which ids naive to the extreme) then they come to the realization of how poor & wretched they really are. Enter the liberals and marxists expousing class envy, and how bad us "capitalists" are and bingo you have a communist revolution and the mayhem we had thoroughout the third world during the Cold War and proxy wars. The Peace Corps is a noble endeavor, but geopolitical realities far outweighed it's benefits--in my opinion, that's all. jorge

Jorge nation building or altruisitic endeavors in foreign lands is an alternative approach that the US chose not to take. The US has mostly backed dictators with a heavy hand while Corporate America reaped the spoils. In return the populace of those countries got nothing but pizzed.

The point is that neither way is isolationism but what might the world look like if we had taken the alternative approach. I don't know.

Do we need to change our approach? Can we change?
Is it too late?

spoken like a trrue liberal democrat. You guys just hate those "evil corporations" don't you? unless of course the Unions own them and run them into the ground. We've been involved with this nation building stuff for a while now. Does Haiti, Iraq & afghanistan ring a bell? jorge

That's a point of view I've never heard about the Peace Corps. Thanks for your take on it.

you bet. jorge

Think ya got the Peace Corps mixed up with MAXUS Oil...one of those evil corporations. Same story line with bad results.

Trinkets & Beads
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/publication/rg/RGBeads.shtml

If the Tea Party has any inteligence they will kick their ass to the curb so fast they will have bells ringing until next election.

My thought is that it's not so much a neocon, RINO, or whatever other label thing as it is a simple power trip. Those who are career politicians like their status and won't give it up easily. They are the type of leaders that run to the front of a group they see forming in order to by definition, lead it. If any of them see the Tea Party as the next big thing, they will be all out in front of it, just to feather their own nests. I see the same thing around here locally. Some nobodies have a good idea and work their asses off to implement it. Just about the time they get it pushed through, some Head Dickweasel runs to the front of their line and makes the last little push then takes complete credit for all of it. Most politicians aren't just career politicians, it's in their blood. It's how they were raised. Sometimes, it's generational. Lots of these [bleep] are worthless.

This upcoming election between McCain and JD will define the future of the GOP for the next 10 years.

So who is gonna win?

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.

I'd like to know more about this, too. Hear it all the time on here. Joo's this, Joo's that.

???

What gives? Is it a common suspicion that international bankers and/or fed reserve share holders are of the Jewish persuasion?

Personally I don't care what religion or ethnicity the banking cartel are, their easily demonstratable destructive effects to our national economy need to be exposed and ended.

And yes, by my definition, a "neocon" supports this lawless financial atrocity. He is also in favor of policing the world and trying to force other nations to adopt democracy. (America can't afford it and it's none of our damn business if we could. We should teach by example. Freedom forced isn't. For a long time we Americans set an example and were the envy of the entire world, for the most part that is now lost and I blame neoconism.) He supports efforts of the FDA-big pharma ring of theives/terrorists as they encroach freedom of choice and force people to use drugs that probably do more harm than good rather than nutritional suppliment which would actually provide cures. Not to mention their support and promotion of known-to-be harmful food additives and substitutes. (eat real food, you'll be healthier for it!) He also supports the whopper sized military industrial complex, which would me much smaller if contracts weren't deliberately steered their direction. Contracts which end up horrendously more expensive because free enterprise looses out to monopolisic misadventure. He supports the war on drugs despite the obvious attacks it makes on liberty and freedom of choice and despite the effects the black market brings into the lives of innocent people around the world. It kills, steals and destroys and does no good whatsoever, but neocons love it anyway.

This list goes on and on... I could easily list 50 more things I routinely toss onto heap of useless and counter productive status quo BS that I consider "neoconism", every one of which is so obviously anti-American in nature it makes me want to puke.

That neocons with an R tattoo on their foreheads strive to undermine and destroy what the tea party movement startd out to be, and should continue TO be, also makes me want to puke.

I've said things like this before. Neocon infiltration of everything under the sun is far more dangerous than anything the liberals can throw out there for people's consideration. Liberals are at least up front with their agendas. Anyone with their wits about them can see right through liberals and know they're whack jobs of the highest order, and most do, too. But neocons are sneaky bastards. They can paint a pretty picture. They are the very best of pretenders. They can sugar coat the ugliest pill and get the majority to swallow it whole. They're in fact far, far more dangerous and destructive than anything the liberals could ever hope to throw at the American public, under the table or above it in plain sight.

But also like I said before, liberals first. They're the ones being exposed right now and rooted out. Next will come the more difficult battles for freedom, liberty and continued survival of the American dream. You jsut wait. It's coming....
And sorry for the sidetrack Started out askinig a simple question but got a little carried away.

Have to disagree. Poling on the issues clearly demonstrated that most Republicans were much closer to Buchanan on the actual issues that concerned them than they were to any other candidate, which explains why he was winning the early primaries handily. It was only after the Republican/Democrat/MSM machine realized the threat he was beginning to pose to the status quo that they all joined hands in forming a Pat Buchanan destruction machine. No one, not even Mother Teressa, could have survived that kind of organized and heavily (unlimited, really) funded opposition willing to sink to any low necessary to destroy a man's reputation.

Poling on the issues clearly demonstrated that most Republicans were much closer to Buchanan on the actual issues that concerned them than they were to any other candidate, which explains why he was winning the early primaries handily. It was only after the Republican/Democrat/MSM machine realized the threat he was beginning to pose to the status quo that they all joined hands in forming a Pat Buchanan destruction machine.
============

I'd love to see your authority and support for this one. Opinions don't count!!

Outcomes indicate that the average republican wanted bigger government in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, and on back to the republican #1 as demonstrated by their primary picks every time.

You haven't addressed my reply.

What a coincidence.

Yes I did. Republicans invariably talk limited government, but vote for, and encourage/brow beat others to vote for, big government republican candidates. If Obama is re-elected most will make Barak sound like a complete statist, but come 2016 they will be lining up to vote for the latest rendition of Lincoln and telling everyone how evil/useless/stupid they are if they don't want to vote for the (R) half of the uniparty.

absorutely right....the last thing you want to do is have the same country who just elected a Muslim communist foreigner president now get to elect a bunch of delegates to rewrite the Constitution......that would be incredibly dangerous and almost certain to end badly.