What Do You Think the Tea Party Movement is About?

[Elder Iptuous]

But still takes the money.  He puts on a good act for the rubes, though.

Why the hell shouldn't he take the money?
it comes out of the pockets of his constituents, so he has a responsibility for a portion of it to be used in his district...

[Doktor Howl]

But still takes the money.  He puts on a good act for the rubes, though.

Why the hell shouldn't he take the money?
it comes out of the pockets of his constituents, so he has a responsibility for a portion of it to be used in his district...

No, he fucking doesn't.  He has the responsibility to see that it is used in the best interests of the nation.  This would mean servicing the debt or at least reducing the deficit, not sending pork home.

Do you realize you've basically just offered a justification for every pork barrel ever rolled out of congress?

[Doktor Howl]

others think that he should be supported as his actions are preferable, regardless of his intent.

What, "business as usual, with a little added rhetoric"?

I'm counting on a breakdown of the system as it devours itself.  probably a slow and grinding one.
i think it's going to suck.

Yeah, but that's what every member of GIM is salivating over.  Because they're all "survivors", and they'd really like to see lots of people die so that they can gloat a bit and have their dream of anarchy.

The fact that 90% of the silly bastards would be among the dead makes me smile a bit.

[Elder Iptuous]

Why the hell shouldn't he take the money?
it comes out of the pockets of his constituents, so he has a responsibility for a portion of it to be used in his district...

No, he fucking doesn't.  He has the responsibility to see that it is used in the best interests of the nation.  This would mean servicing the debt or at least reducing the deficit, not sending pork home.

Do you realize you've basically just offered a justification for every pork barrel ever rolled out of congress?

he's a representative of the constituents in his congressional district and is tasked to act in their best interests.  as a part of the nation, it is in their best interest to not run up huge deficits, so he votes against the bills.  but if the bill is passed, it is in their best interest to have the money that is being taxed from them returned to their district.

that is not at all justification for every pork barrel project.
what is your definition of 'pork'?  if a district has an urgent need for a project to be done that is to be paid for with federal funds and the representative earmarks some of them to ensure that it will get done, and not lost in the cracks waiting in line, is that pork?  note, that i'm not saying that's what all of his earmarks are for (i have no idea what they have been for), but i think there are legitimate reasons that a representative should work to ensure that some of the money is funneled to their district.

[Jenne]

One man's pork is another man's bridge...to nowhere.

[Doktor Howl]

he's a representative of the constituents in his congressional district and is tasked to act in their best interests.  as a part of the nation, it is in their best interest to not run up huge deficits, so he votes against the bills.  but if the bill is passed, it is in their best interest to have the money that is being taxed from them returned to their district.

1.  He's a member of the federal house of representatives.  His job is to make decisions for the country.

2.  So a dog and pony show is good enough?  If there were principles involved, he wouldn't take the pork.  He would instead write legislation referring it to the debt, or to our infrastructure on the national level, and then make a big stink about it.  But why do that when you can vote against something you know will pass, take the pork, and then smirk and brag about how "fiscally responsible" you are?

that is not at all justification for every pork barrel project.

It certainly is.  It is a cookie-cutter justification for any pork barrel project that you could name.

what is your definition of 'pork'?  if a district has an urgent need for a project to be done that is to be paid for with federal funds and the representative earmarks some of them to ensure that it will get done, and not lost in the cracks waiting in line, is that pork?  note, that i'm not saying that's what all of his earmarks are for (i have no idea what they have been for), but i think there are legitimate reasons that a representative should work to ensure that some of the money is funneled to their district.

Perhaps you should look at where that $400Mn goes each year.  Or not, if the answers might shake your faith in the cult of Ron Paul.

Wanting someone to reign in the spending is a good thing.  Swallowing the lies of a fraud (because he at least mouths the words) is not.

[Elder Iptuous]

1.  He's a member of the federal house of representatives.  His job is to make decisions for the country.

2.  So a dog and pony show is good enough?  If there were principles involved, he wouldn't take the pork.  He would instead write legislation referring it to the debt, or to our infrastructure on the national level, and then make a big stink about it.  But why do that when you can vote against something you know will pass, take the pork, and then smirk and brag about how "fiscally responsible" you are?

I disagree. his job is to make national level decisions with the interests of his district in mind. why have a house of representatives otherwise?

It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says.  he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets.  you seem to be ignoring that part.  not ensuring that the funds that he votes against will at least, in part, be spent in his district would be cutting off his nose to spite his face in my estimation.  I've seen many dismiss him as an ideologue, but when he makes a pragmatic decision, he is ridiculed as a hypocrite. pfft.

Perhaps you should look at where that $400Mn goes each year.  Or not, if the answers might shake your faith in the cult of Ron Paul.

Wanting someone to reign in the spending is a good thing.  Swallowing the lies of a fraud (because he at least mouths the words) is not.

you are correct.  i really should look into it if i am to argue from an informed standpoint.  as i understand it, this will be made easier since RP attaches his name to all the earmarks that he puts in, as opposed to the more corrupt uses of them where their anonymity is necessary...

If you could show me some of his worst offenses, it might help me out a bit....

Also, i'd like to point out that i'm not a full cult follower, as i disagree with him on some points, and i don't think his efforts will change anything ultimately...

[Doktor Howl]

It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says.  he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets. 

And he takes the money.

In the end, it's about results.  Or it should be.

What the Ron Paul crowd wants is talk.

[Doktor Howl]

If you could show me some of his worst offenses, it might help me out a bit....

Not even sure if I consider his pork "offensive".  I'm just saying you should look with an unbiased eye.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm a bit upset, now I realize you don't mean actual pork.

No, it's an American phrase meaning "filthy lucre".

[Elder Iptuous]

It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says.  he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets. 

And he takes the money.

In the end, it's about results.  Or it should be.

What the Ron Paul crowd wants is talk.

is it not his constituents money to begin with?
they want talk?  you mean to say that the RP crowd is actually pleased with the current status quo?

[Doktor Howl]

It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says.  he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets. 

And he takes the money.

In the end, it's about results.  Or it should be.

What the Ron Paul crowd wants is talk.

is it not his constituents money to begin with?
they want talk?  you mean to say that the RP crowd is actually pleased with the current status quo?

No, it fucking is not.  It is the department of the treasury's money, until such time as it is allocated, once you strip the rhetoric off of it.  If you want it to be YOUR money, as in The Peoples' money, then I suggest you demand a representative that does more than a self-serving, cynical dog and pony show.

And yes, the Ron Paul crowd is more than pleased with the status quo. 

Unless they'd like to lose highway maintenance.  Or the military that protects us from the people we've raped for the last 200 years.  Or sanitation, emergency services, yada yada yada.

What they AREN'T happy with, is having to PAY for these things.  Well, too damn bad...reality is what is still there when you're done bitching, and the fact is, the bills DO have to be paid.  If the Libertarians don't like it, they can fuck off to Somalia, where there are no horrible "laws" and "taxes".  Or "roads" and "food" (the two ARE connected).

[Elder Iptuous]

No, it fucking is not.  It is the department of the treasury's money, until such time as it is allocated, once you strip the rhetoric off of it.  If you want it to be YOUR money, as in The Peoples' money, then I suggest you demand a representative that does more than a self-serving, cynical dog and pony show.

And yes, the Ron Paul crowd is more than pleased with the status quo. 

Unless they'd like to lose highway maintenance.  Or the military that protects us from the people we've raped for the last 200 years.  Or sanitation, emergency services, yada yada yada.

What they AREN'T happy with, is having to PAY for these things.  Well, too damn bad...reality is what is still there when you're done bitching, and the fact is, the bills DO have to be paid.  If the Libertarians don't like it, they can fuck off to Somalia, where there are no horrible "laws" and "taxes".  Or "roads" and "food" (the two ARE connected).

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that he votes against the bills.  I don't see how you can call it a show if he's not voting for them.

As far as your examples of the RP crowd being pleased with the status quo, I would say that in large part they do want federal funding out of them...  many/most of them to a greater degree than I do...

'if you don't like it, you can move to some other place...'  huh. Where have I heard that rhetoric before?

[Requia ☣]

The Tea Parties were funded and run, at least in the early stages, by FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit organization who specialize in astroturfing.  Several other groups associated with the incredibly rich and incredibly conservative Koch brothers, who also fund FreedomWorks, are known to be involved with the Tea Partiers as well.

the tea parties were not funded or run by anyone in the early stages.
they were ad hoc things set up by RP supporters in intarweb forums.  i don't know when they became coopted, but i can tell you that for sure...

Several of those websites were set up months in advanced of the 'spontanious' launch of the chicago tea party protest by members of Freedomworks.  Which is funded by bankers and run by a senator.  The ning site the teaparties have has a member of the Koch family (the bankers funding Freedomworks) as a watchdog on it as well.

[Doktor Howl]

No, it fucking is not.  It is the department of the treasury's money, until such time as it is allocated, once you strip the rhetoric off of it.  If you want it to be YOUR money, as in The Peoples' money, then I suggest you demand a representative that does more than a self-serving, cynical dog and pony show.

And yes, the Ron Paul crowd is more than pleased with the status quo. 

Unless they'd like to lose highway maintenance.  Or the military that protects us from the people we've raped for the last 200 years.  Or sanitation, emergency services, yada yada yada.

What they AREN'T happy with, is having to PAY for these things.  Well, too damn bad...reality is what is still there when you're done bitching, and the fact is, the bills DO have to be paid.  If the Libertarians don't like it, they can fuck off to Somalia, where there are no horrible "laws" and "taxes".  Or "roads" and "food" (the two ARE connected).

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that he votes against the bills.  I don't see how you can call it a show if he's not voting for them.

As far as your examples of the RP crowd being pleased with the status quo, I would say that in large part they do want federal funding out of them...  many/most of them to a greater degree than I do...

'if you don't like it, you can move to some other place...'  huh. Where have I heard that rhetoric before?

1.  Because he knows they'll pass anyway.  It's like him voting against congressional pay raises, then taking the raise (by contrast, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin still accepts the same pay he received as a freshman, donating the difference to charities in his state after voting against the raises.  There's other reasons to hate Feingold, though.).

2.  So people in New York deserve good roads, but people in the Appalachias don't?  And states should pay for constitutionally-mandated federal highways (article I, section 8, postal roads)?

3.  Sure.  But it's easier, and more fair, than dismantling a system others are using, because you don't want to pay the bills.  If there's an existing system that is more to your liking already in place, why not use it?  Sure, you'll die of cholera, but at least you won't have to pay for the CDC, or take it away from people who DO want it.