well friend, alot of the major constituents of the tea party do have problems with other people. I wasn't directing the redneck comment at you either. I was raised in south carolina and when I say redneck I don't mean someone who is mainly self sufficient by means of farming I mean biggoted, uneducated hateful people. There seems to be alot more of those in southern states than in northern ones.

I don't want to argue with you as all politics are pretty much inherently ugly I just wanted to point out that the tea party stands for some things that I know the people of the nexus don't like. That is all.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking for an argument either. I understand and I respect where you are coming from.

I supported and voted for the current administration and I feel I have been betrayed. I feel that many of the minority groups who supported him have been betrayed.

I feel our country is being destroyed ecconomically, which will have a very far reaching impact many decades to come.

I'm sure the Tea Party Stands for many things the Nexus doesnt like. Does that mean I should be afraid to voice my opinion on the Nexus? lol

I'm sure there are things about the current administration that the Nexus doesnt like.

There are things about the Nexus I dont like.

There are things about me, the Nexus doesnt like. I'm sure.

Many of the major constituents of the current administration have problems with other people that dont agree with their politics.


You are right all politics are inherently ugly.

Respectfully,

IHS

I am a libertarian who supports the Tea Party. I am not a nut job, to the best of my knowledge. I don't feel anyone should be made a lessor human being in the eyes of the law or fellow mankind. I have many friends that are gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, black, white.... These differences have honestly never possed a problem for any of us.

I LOVE knowledge. I love to read and research the world around me.

I don't want harsher drug laws.

A bunch of rednecks wanting booze money...... Well. I wouldn't consider myself a redneck but I do want booze money.....

Honestly I know a lot of people that do support the movement and they are like me. Maybe you have met the man you describe, I'm sure he exist. But to say an entire movement fits your ficticious box is ignorant. The establishment does want the country to believe exactly as you have posted though, so I don't blame you. I'm sure you saw it on tv.

Here are some gross over-generalizations for you all:

The problem with ALL political parties and movements is that the majority of their supporters don’t really know (or don’t want to know) what the party really stands for. Parties need the support of a large percentage of the voting public in order to be viable, yet some parties actually represent the interests of only a very small number of voters.

For example, I bet the Republican party represents the interests of less than 5% of the voting public, yet they routinely manage to get nearly 50% of the vote.

So what’s a party to do? Easy – tell people what they want to hear. As an example, the Republican party doesn’t support women’s rights, so how do you get the support of women? Get a woman as a Vice-Presidential running mate. Problem solved. The Republican party doesn’t support the interests of most blacks, so get a black to head the RNC. The Republican party doesn’t support the interests of poor southern whites, so tell them you support “Christian values”, loose gun laws, and a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration and you’ll have them eating out of your hand.

Every party does this. I just use the Republicans as an example because it’s more obvious to me, since I don’t support that party.

The Tea Party tells us that it represents smaller government, less government spending, lower taxes, less government intrusion in our lives, etc. And if these were things they really represented, I might support them. But it’s clear their hidden agenda is quite different. They really represent corporate interests. They want government off the backs of corporations, they want less government oversight and regulation, they want lower taxes for corporations and the very wealthy.

So if you’re very wealthy and affiliated with a corporation that would benefit financially from less government regulation, then your interests will be served by the Tea Party. Otherwise, probably not.

Regardless of party or movement affiliation, we’re all routinely lied to, misled, and deceived into voting against our own interests.

Politics in western countries is totally fucked up. Western civilisation is on it's way down. I like to be optimistic, but the facts prove me wrong on this everytime. The tea-party isn't gonna change anything.

The political systems as we know them are unable to allow change from within. Therefore changes will be forced upon our society's, whether we like it or not. Since they will be forced upon us, i'd say that we're not gonna like it.

We have lost the ability to look further than our own short-term interests. This increasingly leads to confrontations as a result of wich we do not wake up, but ideologically defend our freedom to look no further than our individual short-term interest.

Dumbness and shortsightedness have become our ideology. We have come to believe that looking no further than our own individual short-term interests is the essence of freedom itself.

The consequences will be severe. The crisis is not over, we've just got the first wave behind us. The next ones are likely to be bigger.

Palin/Beck 2012!

I didnt say it.

I might like that if it wasnt for the fact that Glen Beck brings far right religious conservatism to the stage. I dont want to have the bible or the book of mormon as the foundation for the decision making process for Americans.

I like the way both Palin and Beck expose corruption.

They are BOTH for the rights of All American Citizens. IMHO

I agree with you mostly. I used to watch Beck, until he went off the deep end. Half of what he says now is true, half total nonsense...and he would bring that religious conservatism along with him.

My problem with Palin, is that the lady is just a moron. I mean, even George Bush can speak and communicate ideas better than her. We've had plenty of mentally challenged presidents, we don't need another one. She has also sold out the Tea Party in order to set herself up for a run in 2012, choosing non Tea Party canidates where convienient to help her set up her run for prez.

They are both Murdockians, so I dunno how much true corruption they are exposing...

The tea party and glenn beck and all those losers make libertarians look like idiots. The tea party is backed by corporate interests who don't give a f@ck about liberty.

I am pro individual liberty and pro constitution. The problem with many so called libertarians is that they equate individual liberty with corporate liberty without even realizing they are doing it.

Look at Ron Paul. The guy claims to be pro liberty but ask him about abortion. What kind of MAN thinks he has the right to make laws restricting woman's decision whether or not they want to kill their fetus? Although his argument is that its a state decision which I don't think he can support on constitutional grounds either. I used to like the guy until I found out he's a quack. By quack I mean medical quack he supports fake science journals that try to claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV! (!?!?!?!? seriously...its fucked)

Libertarianism as a political philosophy fails to deal with certain issues as well. Some include poverty education and environmental issues. Also sometimes it is better to have a public program versus a private company. Only an idiot would think that ALL schools should be private. Of course we should have private schools but it would be destructive to society on a whole if there was no public education.

There are good things in libertarianism but just like every other 'ism' it fails at others. Therefore as usual we need to just do what works for the most amount of people while having the most amount of freedom and stop worrying about labels.

Well said, burnt.

Very well put. I couldnt agree more.

The current drug laws make anyone a criminal who takes certain substances. If people are worried about their children taking drugs, or getting hooked by dealers, then make dealing and pimping illegal. Go after those guys. The current laws will make ANYONE a criminal who users certain drugs for any reason, even if that persons intent has absolutely nothing to do with selling, profiting, getting people hooked, have zero harmful intent towards themself or others, or affecting any one else in any way. Current drug laws are like making it a crime for anyone to view porn. There are laws against showing porn to minors, there are laws against kiddie porn, and their are laws against giving alcohol to minors. GO AFTER THOSE GUYS! You don't make every single person who looks at sexual material a criminal. That's ridiculous. Sadly, there have been times in history when "smut" of any kind was actually viewed as a crime. It has caused a lot of uneccessary suffering and hardship and destroyed lives for no good reason. The world as a whole survived obviously, but insane laws of the past have caused such immense suffering. As a matter of fact, there have been many wars and slaves and millions of lives ruined for no good cause.... just war, just oppression for the sake of control, and uneccessary sufferring. The blacks survived slavery, but how many lives were made in to hell? I say no more. Isn't one life too many? I mean, for even just one person to have their life destroyed for a stupid reason, say for example, because the government decided to intervene in something that is absolutely none of their business, thus criminalizing an innocent person. It's wrong. Eventually people wised up.

Eventually people decided that NO! It's NOT ok to make people slaves. Also, people have the right to look at other naked people if they want to. Intolerance of sexual behavior led to suffering, and making people criminals who should not have been criminals. Similarly, the drug war is making people criminals who should not be criminals. Hopefully the day will come when drug use is decriminalized. Where drug abuse is recognized as a health problem, not a criminal problem. And the true criminal problem of extortion, pimping, and selling to minors is recognized as criminal behavior..... just as giving alcohol to minors is criminal behavior...... not having a glass of wine at a party. This logic seems obvious when it is applied to alcohol, yet sadly not yet for other drugs...... even non addictive drugs apparently. I supposed I could see the intent, though not the effectiveness, of the war on drugs when it comes to certain ones that have proven to be incredibly addictive, opium, heroin.... but then there are drugs that aren't even addicitve, like entheogens, and they are still criminalized with severe life destroying penalties. Hopefully the day will come when people have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and express their religious/spiritual selves. And I say that because entheogen use is absolutely a spiritual practice, and criminalizing entheogen use is clearly a strong violation of personal freedom, in my opinion. If someone wants to take certain drugs, that's their business. If they give drugs to kids, or get people hooked and live off the avails, that's no longer a personal freedom issue, but a child abuse / criminal issue. Hopefully one day the state will realize this. Hopefully the state will be able to see the difference between criminal activity, like getting kids hooked on heroin, and a different activity, like smoking alone alone on your own property...... just as the law recognizes the difference between giving alcohol to minors, and having a glass of wine on your own property. Duh.

Fnog, I agree.
But, I personally don't mind laws regarding highly destructive and addictive drugs like heroin and crack etc. But I would prefer rehabilitation unless they are dealing.

About palin as president of the USA: she would definately bring the downfall of the USA much closer, but on the other hand the rest of the world would have a view good laughs.

And when it comes to stupidity she has enough of it for the masses to be able to identify themselves with her, wich is ofcourse where presidential elections are realy all about.

She could very well succeed where 'W' has failed when it comes to bringing death and destruction upon this little planet, but her comic qualities are undisputed. Like the joker said: "if you gotta go, go with a smile".

I think that would also be a good slogan for her campain.

It's been way too long since I've seen a politician worth voting for. A fraud on the left and a fraud on the right.I still vote for who I feel will cause the least damage but where are the people that actually care about the country and not just the power, celebrity and money? Politics is nothing more than a popularity contest now, people don't vote on the issues anymore. How can you anyways? They lie about there stances anyways.

There is a void that needs to be filled. But by who? and when? will it be too late?

PS: I wouldn't vote for her but I haven't seen any evidence that she's any dumber than Obama.

I have to disagree with that. Voting democrat is in general better than voting republican as democrats are "generally" more progressive and liberal in their view while republicans are "generally" more conservative and knuckle dragging.

While the current democrat has not done enough, I agree, he has , for instance, made SOME efforts toward decriminalization of mj by stopping raids on dispensaries. He has a more tolerant cabinet below him as well. Bush on the other hand made things far worse for the world by pushing right wing intolerant conservative views and agendas.
I wanted Dennis Kucinich, but that wasn't happening, so voting for people of the democratic party to be in power is much better than voting for conservative anti-progressive right wing people in the republican party. Are the democrats perfect....lol...far from it but by far the better of two evils.

Progressive or Coservative Both are crooked as hell, I agree whith what you said about the progressives and MJ Laws. I do like that.

The problem with the progressives is, it takes so many more of them to run the show for some reason. That equates to twice as many hands in the cookie jar.

I don't understand this reply. First you admit that in holland and scandinavian countries there is less poverty, the average incomes are higher, healthcare is better, etc. not to mention that the scandinavians are the happiest people on earth, and then you say that in spite all of these facts that show that scandinavian society's are functioning better than the american society, that doesn't demonstrate that the scandinavian way of looking at what governments are supposed to do is a better way of looking at it....

I don't understand. It's about results, right? If the danish are happier than the dutch, then the danish must do something better than we do. I don't care whether it means less or more government. I don't see how that could be an ideological issue by itself. When everything in society works out OK, i don't care whether it's because of more government or because of less government, as long as it works out.

Denmark is the happiest nation on earth, so apparently circumstances of living are better there then anywhere else.

If everybody will make the same amount of efforts to become a happy person, wich is reasonable to assume because being happy is what everybody wants and everybody always wants as much of it as possible, then the environment that offers most chances will be the place where the most people are the happiest.
Denmark is that place, so apparently, the danish society offers more chances to people, than any other society does.

That must be because danish society is organised in a better way and only the way of looking at the government can account for this difference, so they're socio-economic model is better then ours.

If they have a bigger government than the USA has, than the fact that their society works better should be a reason to revise views on what the governments should do, rather than believing that big or small government has any significance by itself.
The fact that the government raises taxes cannot be a reason by itself either, since eveything costs money whether you have it done by a government or by the market. The question should be what the costs/benefits ratio is. If the government doesn't deliver what it's paid for, to do, then taxes are too high. If you pay more taxes, but you are better of than when you would have payed less, than taxes aren't too high.

^^Polytrip one difference between the the relative sizes of the US government and more welfare managed states like Denmark is the size of the country and population. This actually makes a big difference in the practical and logistical aspects of running such a state.

Since the US is so big its hard to get everyone to agree on such things. Personally I think these decisions are better left to individual states. That way states that find the best middle ground other states will follow. If people in certain states want minumum taxes and minumum government interference let them. If other states want a big welfare system let them. The ones that work the others will model themselves after.

I think thats the best approach to this issue instead of broad sweeping policies that might not work so well in a country like the US for various reasons.

I agree, all politics should go from local to global, not the other way around. Keep the resources in the local community, that way the population can react to needs in a much quicker and more efficient manner.