Gov Dayton

[swamptiger]

Quote:

I bet there was little commonality of membership between the post-Santelli Tea Party and the Ron Paul version.

There were numerous organizations started, mostly with the precept of cutting the size of government and cutting taxes.

A lot of them withered away when they realized cutting government spending might involve cutting into their Medicare or other govt. bennies...

[Big Dave2]

Yeah, then several "not so libertarian" Republicans decided to jump on the bandwagon about the same time.

But the Tea Party concept originated with the Ron Paul campaign a couple of years earlier.

No question about it.

[LMITOUT]

Yeah, then several "not so libertarian" Republicans decided to jump on the bandwagon about the same time.

But the Tea Party concept originated with the Ron Paul campaign a couple of years earlier.

No question about it.

What was that you were saying about revisionist history???

Geesh!

[swamptiger]

Quote:

What was that you were saying about revisionist history???

Geesh!

The Kremlin was good at it.

Even the Playboy reporters picked up on that.

What hasn’t been reported until now is evidence linking Santelli’s “tea party” rant with some very familiar names in the Republican rightwing machine, from PR operatives who specialize in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns (called “astroturfing”) to bigwig politicians and notorious billionaire funders. As veteran Russia reporters, both of us spent years watching the Kremlin use fake grassroots movements to influence and control the political landscape. To us, the uncanny speed and direction the movement took and the players involved in promoting it had a strangely forced quality to it. If it seemed scripted, that’s because it was.

[Big Dave2]

What was that you were saying about revisionist history???

Geesh!

[LMITOUT]

The Kremlin was good at it.

So are Libertarians, apparently.

[swamptiger]

Libertarians are just plain good all the way around.

Except when it comes to winning elections, freebies always win out.

[pushbutton]

Libertarians are just plain good all the way around.

Seriously...it is a great way be right, on every issue, always

[PurpleFloyd]

If you go with the constitution it's hard to be wrong.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Seriously...it is a great way be right, on every issue, always wink

Absolutely...

Why the liberty movement will outlast the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street:

The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street

By Robert Taylor July 6, 2012

In the last few years, we have witnessed the rise of several protest groups and organizations that have made their voices heard in the public and in the media. On the left, there is the Occupy Movement, on the right, there is the Tea Party.

There is also a self-described "liberty movement," with strong libertarian convictions and influenced by the presidential candidacy and ideas of Ron Paul. Although both the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party highlight legitimate grievances, both groups have obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings. The more principled and focused liberty movement will undoubtedly have the biggest effect on public debate and long-term political trends.

The Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party was officially started on November 5, 2007, when then presidential candidate Ron Paul held his first "money bomb," raising of over $4 million (which, at the time, was the most money ever raised by a political candidate in one day). The Tea Party began as a grassroots group of frustrated libertarians and paleo-conservatives, angry at the Republicans for their spending, deficits, and debts, the loss of civil liberties, and military interventionism overseas. As it grew, however, the movement soon began to be co-opted by mainstream Republican politicians and pundits, and combined with the election of President Obama, took a much more partisan turn.

While still clinging to the rhetoric of slamming "big government" and too much taxation, the Tea Party evolved into right-wing resistance against Obama and the Democrats. Libertarian populism was replaced with shouts of "Hands off my Medicare!", conspiracy theories about Obama's religion and national origin, and elected many of the same politicians that just a few years ago were the target of their protests.

The Occupy Movement as well began as a grassroots, decentralized movement against Wall Street corruption and big banks. Famous for popularizing the "99%" versus the "1%" narrative, the Occupiers saw an excess of capitalism, Wall Street corruption, and "deregulation" as the causes of U.S.'s economics woes, urging higher taxes on the rich and left-leaning economic policies. Although much less co-opted by the Democrats - President Obama has only given minor hints of solidarity with them - the Occupy Movement correctly recognized a problem, but an ignorance of economics prevented (and still prevents) them from throwing darts at the right target.

The liberty movement, on the other hand, is much different. Although more of an offshoot of the Tea Party, it blends many of the justified complaints of the Occupy crowd into a clearer comprehension of the causes of our economic mess and what to do about it. Boosted by Ron Paul's presidential run -- which in reality was an unbelievably successful libertarian speaking tour -- the liberty movement, formed mostly by people under the age of 35, synthesized the anger of the left and right thanks to an understanding of economics, history, and the nature of government power. To blame either big government or big banks is only half of the equation, and any proposed solution absent this synthesis will only empower the other (or both).

The liberty movement has stroked the root; as opposed to the Tea Party and Occupy, which have largely been trimming the branches. It is not just "big government" that is a threat to liberty, but all forms of initiated coercion. And there is a "1%" out there, alright; it's the predictable result of money-printing and fiat money, funnelling wealth upwards. It's not the rich, per se, only those that have acquired their wealth through the political process, like bailouts, subsidies, artificial monopolies, regulatory snag, fractional-reserve banking, and government contracts.

The liberty movement understands that this process is brought about by the Federal Reserve and the business cycle, the nature of states to always grow, the terrible costs of military empire, and that the Bill of Rights, a market economy, and a sound currency -- not soaking the rich or electing Republicans -- are the paths to prosperity and ending the corporatism that dominates America.

And fundamentally, as a principled opponent of state power, the liberty movement is an anti-war movement, knowing that war is the biggest enabler of the growth of government, infringes on speech and civil liberties, and destroys life, wealth, and private property both at home and abroad. It opposes Obama's warmongering just as much, if not more, than his corporate welfarism at home. Peace and the Bill of Rights first, the rest comes second.

This is why I believe the liberty movement will have the biggest influence in the future. It is undeniably growing by leaps and bounds, and will only continue to spread. And because it rejects partisan politics, the false left-right spectrum, and a synthesis of sound economics and civil liberties, its message will draw in those who might be turned off by either the Tea Party or the Occupiers.

Although I disagree with much of what the Tea party and the Occupy Movement stand for, I will always defend those who wish to protest against injustice, even if their solutions would likely enable the beasts they are attempting to slay. Republicans and Democrats, comfy in their thrones of power, obviously see all of these protest movements as threats to their back-and-forth rule. This is what scares me about the passing of the NDAA, the legislation banning protests near government buildings, and a DHS report that list "liberty lovers" as domestic threats. They are obviously scared of any resistance to their monopoly on power.

And while the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement both bring important issues to the forefront, they tend to be highly partisan and will likely ebb and flow depending on which party is in power. This is why the liberty movement, and their principled, philosophical consistency, will continue to grow, offer a real alternative, and create radical change in the direction of peace and human liberty.

[delcecchi]

If you go with the constitution it's hard to be wrong.

Too bad the Libertarian Party doesn't like some parts of it and wants to do away with them.

[swamptiger]

Too bad the Republicans already did, too.

[tacklejunkie]

I agree with most of the LP parties platform. However, like liberals, they strike me as not believing there are unintended consequences of many of the things they propose. They seem to believe in the same Utopia on Earth.

But let's compare the LP candidate in 2012 to Romney, Obama, and even GWB. Would anyone dispute that Johnson's record as govenor of New Mexico was better that Romney in Mass? Or GWB as president? Or BHO currently?Would a Johnson presidency be a much needed improvement over our last few choices? I can't predict the future, but based on his record as govenor, I'd have to believe he would have been

Of course, he was a Republican when govenor

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Of course, he was a Republican when govenor grin

He'd be ok, if it wasn't for all that hookers and blow stuff.

[PurpleFloyd]

Too bad the Libertarian Party doesn't like some parts of it and wants to do away with them.

which ones ?

[delcecchi]

which ones ?

Eminent Domain, for openers.

[Big Dave2]

Eminent Domain, for openers.

To my knowledge, the constitution LIMITS eminent domain, it doesn't PROTECT it.

What else ya got?

[PurpleFloyd]

Eminent Domain, for openers.

explain how the constitution regards it and how the LP wants to change it

[delcecchi]

LP platform calls for abolishing Eminent Domain.

Didn't we have this platform discussion a while back?

[Big Dave2]

LP platform calls for abolishing Eminent Domain.

Didn't we have this platform discussion a while back?

Can you show me where in the constitution eminent domain is protected?

[delcecchi]

Can you show me where in the constitution eminent domain is protected?

The founders recognized the necessity by putting in the takings clause rather than just prohibiting taking outright.

[Big Dave2]

Can you show me where in the constitution eminent domain is protected?

[PurpleFloyd]

LP platform calls for abolishing Eminent Domain.

Didn't we have this platform discussion a while back?

I missed the part where you explain how the constitution regards it.

[KawishiwiKid]

It took all of three seconds to find this using google... Eminent Domain explained

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: delcecchi

LP platform calls for abolishing Eminent Domain.

Didn't we have this platform discussion a while back?

Purple Floyd

I missed the part where you explain how the constitution regards it.

I missed the part where the LP platform calls for abolishment.

Opposed to the concept, yes. Libertarians generally regard eminent domain as theft, regardless of whether "just compensation" has been made or not.

However, they do recognize the "takings" clause in the Constitution, and look upon eminent domain as a necessary evil, to be used sparingly.

So, unless Del can point out where they call for abolishment.....pfft

[delcecchi]

I missed the part where the LP platform calls for abolishment.

Opposed to the concept, yes. Libertarians generally regard eminent domain as theft, regardless of whether "just compensation" has been made or not.

However, they do recognize the "takings" clause in the Constitution, and look upon eminent domain as a necessary evil, to be used sparingly.

So, unless Del can point out where they call for abolishment.....pfft

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Seems pretty clear to me.

Doesn't surprise me...

But nowhere does it mention abolishment, does it?

[Big Dave2]

Seems pretty clear to me.

[PurpleFloyd]

Sounds like del is making his best pitch in support of socialism.

[delcecchi]

Sounds like del is making his best pitch in support of socialism.

That's right. I fish in the State owned lakes, drive on state owned roads, fly from the state owned airports on planes supervised by the government monopoly air traffic control system, go to the beach on state owned beaches.

I rely on state health inspectors to keep the restaurants I eat in following sanitary food preparation standards, set by the state. The drugs I take are monitored by the state for proper manufacture, efficacy, and safety.

The state helps me breathe by preventing my neighbor from exercising his god (or higher power of your choice or no cause) given right to burn tires and garbage in his yard without me having to file a lawsuit and prove I was injured by the smoke.

Seems like Libertarians make that kind of "socialism" look pretty good, now that you mention it.

But getting back to the subject, such as it is, do you guys, as local representatives of the Libertarian Party, support the government having the power of eminent domain or not? The platform lumped it in with civil forfeiture, production controls, and wage/price controls. I figured they wanted to do away with all of those things since they are abridgements of fundamental rights. At least that is the way I read the clause out of the platform, the part I put in bold. After all isn't "freeing property owners of abridgments of their fundamental rights"... with Eminent Domain being enumerated as one of those abridgements calling for the abolition of it?