Is it time for a third party?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Let me spell it out for you. I know compound thoughts or words get confusing sometimes.

"TEA" As in the Boston Tea party. Is a word all on its own. In this case meaning to revolt.
"PARTY" as in a third-party.

Tea stands for civil disobedience. And party stands for a new party.

Together they mean let's lie,slander and cause trouble.
Basically pretend to start a party, get the Republicans to cut them some slack and once they get a little power lose their fucking minds.

Seems like the Pilgrims all over again.

I see where you made a mistake. The Tea Party (unlike Occupy) has not been disobdient. They, we have always protested within the framework of constitutionally authority. We don't burn things (like CVS buildings), we don't shit in the street, we don't burn things in effigy, and we don't break the law at our rallies. You must be thinking of someone else.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I see where you made a mistake. The Tea Party (unlike Occupy) has not been disobdient. They, we have always protested within the framework of constitutionally authority. We don't burn things (like CVS buildings), we don't shit in the street, we don't burn things in effigy, and we don't break the law at our rallies. You must be thinking of someone else.

Wow you think the Teaparty is a bunch of saints.

Tell me, are you going to Michael John Kobulnicky's Patriot Voices Summit?

By the way did you help bail out any of the "thugs" arrested at the Occupy in Oakland? ( Teaparty activist acting as Occupy members)

Lets not forget about Jerad and Amanda Miller either.

Brian Schwanke?

Mark Mayfield and Clayton Thomas Kelly ?

Shall I go on?

No, I don't think those that riot are okay on any side of the issue.

The Teaparty web site even encourages civil disobedience so tell me how they don't do it again?

[JD Barleycorn]

Want to share pictures of an Occupy rally (which has disappeared) versus a Tea Party rally? How many of either have you been to?

Since you're here; I have been having two problems of late. For some reason my keyboard (two of them actually) starts to lock up sometimes when I want to post here and on Disqus. So I just give up and move on. Why? Someone had it close, the new school year is about to begin and time is short. Lesson plans, meetings, and (get this) last week we had a encounter group/camp out with the new department head which is why I never got many chances to post.

On the one post, I said over two months (three months?) ago that I was finished posting about that but no one has answered about what happened. It is still conjecture and the mystery is still there.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So I just give up and move on.

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1465604

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by slingblade

There would be no such thing as a minor if a 16 year old wanted to use any illicit drug or make an XX rated movie or buy an AR15, as a libertarian you could not make a law against it.

As soon as you impose your personal values you have basically what we have now.

Abortion would be legal, gay marriage, incest, pretty much anything that did not harm another be would alright from every stretch of the imagination.

Don't get me wrong I agree with a large part of the Libertarian movement, but they can not say they want a true Libertarian Government. Most are only looking at the parts that they like and would have no problem with issues that do not effect them or they find repulsive

I've never seen that in any Libertarian policy papers. You're making stuff up. Libertarians are individuals, and our main goal is for government to leave us alone. I don't agree with the party on border issues, but I still actively support the party. And what's wrong with an activity if the people are of age, consenting, and no others are harmed? If it doesn't involve you, why would you want to control it? What have you got against freedom?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I've never seen that in any Libertarian policy papers. You're making stuff up. Libertarians are individuals, and our main goal is for government to leave us alone. I don't agree with the party on border issues, but I still actively support the party. And what's wrong with an activity if the people are of age, consenting, and no others are harmed? If it doesn't involve you, why would you want to control it? What have you got against freedom?

Who says what age is 'of age'? You? If it doesn't involve me, why would I want to control it? Did you really just ask that? Because we occupy the same planet, you old fucking idiot, that's why. I don't want you blowing up my spot because you think you have the right to be a fucking moron. Everything involves everyone, don't you get it? Libertarianism is the other side of the coin from Communism. In practice, neither one will work.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Want to share pictures of an Occupy rally (which has disappeared) versus a Tea Party rally? How many of either have you been to?

Since you're here; I have been having two problems of late. For some reason my keyboard (two of them actually) starts to lock up sometimes when I want to post here and on Disqus. So I just give up and move on. Why? Someone had it close, the new school year is about to begin and time is short. Lesson plans, meetings, and (get this) last week we had a encounter group/camp out with the new department head which is why I never got many chances to post.

On the one post, I said over two months (three months?) ago that I was finished posting about that but no one has answered about what happened. It is still conjecture and the mystery is still there.

???? I think you meant to send that to one of your co-workers

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I've never seen that in any Libertarian policy papers. You're making stuff up. Libertarians are individuals, and our main goal is for government to leave us alone. I don't agree with the party on border issues, but I still actively support the party. And what's wrong with an activity if the people are of age, consenting, and no others are harmed? If it doesn't involve you, why would you want to control it? What have you got against freedom?

I suggest you do a little more research on that party, you will know why they are never going to get off the ground. It is organized anarchy pretty much.

You mentioned freedom. So when the Teaparty wants to make laws that they feel are from the bible are you okay with that? Libertarians are fine with Abortion and homosexuality and drugs of any kind. They do not support gay marriage only because they do not believe in marriage of any kind. As for kids the rule they have is kinda like our 2nd amendment " as long the parents are raising them in what they feel is okay way then its okay by them.

If you start making exceptions to the rules because of your moral code or folkways then you wind up having a Democratic republic. Then after a few years some folks that like the Republic part will try to take over and some will succeed and then a war will ensue. Sound familiar?

[CuteOldGuy]

I believe that the government should enforce laws that keep people from taking anyone else's life, liberty or property by force or fraud. Very little else. Why do you insist on lying about what Libertarianism is? Laws against stealing, murder, etc. agree with the Bible, but I support them. They are consistent with libertarian policy. Laws against gay marriage also agree with the Bible, but I don't support them, because it doesn't affect me. The Bible is irrelevant.

You don't know enough about Libertarianism to discuss it intelligently. You make stuff up, knock it down, and think you've proved something. You have. You've proved you're ignorant.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I believe that the government should enforce laws that keep people from taking anyone else's life, liberty or property by force or fraud. Very little else. Why do you insist on lying about what Libertarianism is? Laws against stealing, murder, etc. agree with the Bible, but I support them. They are consistent with libertarian policy. Laws against gay marriage also agree with the Bible, but I don't support them, because it doesn't affect me. The Bible is irrelevant.

You don't know enough about Libertarianism to discuss it intelligently. You make stuff up, knock it down, and think you've proved something. You have. You've proved you're ignorant.

Apparently someone has blown smoke up your ass about the Libertarian doctrine. What issue do you think I am lying about? I have an idea of what you want is to use the Libertarian card to pick and choose what you want. Standard Conservative MO.