Journal FroMan's Journal: TEA Party Event 17
I took the family to the TEA Party event in Grand Rapids this afternoon. It was a beautiful day, sunny and warm. I'd guess about 1500 folks showed up for the event, but I'm by no means trained in counting crowds. I did take a video of the crowd and will actually try to count the crowd if the news reports or the TEA Party website says a number too different from my estimate. Things were already underway when I arrived.
The first speaker we heard was certainly not someone I would want representing myself. She was a bit on the angry side, which one might think is preaching to the choir, but the crowd didn't respond well to her.
The second speaker was more describing an organization, http://www.icaucus.org/ and how they screen candidates that they wind up supporting. It sounds like a great organization, promoting some very sounds politicians. I'll probably keep looking into it.
Before we took off we listened to another presentation by a 17 year old. He was an interesting fellow, had his own radio show at one point. It is encouraging to see younger kids believing in conservative values.
One thing I did notice was there were not many black folks in the crowd. It is something I've heard a lot, that the TEA Party folks are all white and it sort of looked like that in this crowd. Then I looked closer, there were a reasonable number of Hispanic and Oriental folks in the crowd beyond the mostly white folks.
Over all the folks there were happy. My little boy ran around among the crowd with me chasing. There were lots of smiles and giggles. Basically there are a lot of good natured folks who have concern about where this country is going and wish to turn back the tide.
Black people couldn't attend (Score:1)
Because they're still enslaved. Only it's voluntary this time.
Amazing how icaucus's supported candidates (Score:1)
All tow a conservative Christian republican party talking points line. (To be fair, a few of the republican candidates did support a few "get our troops home right now" talking points on their pages).
I found it rather annoying that I had to dig to find religious affiliations though. If someone is going to vote pro-life I want them to say it outright so I know who to avoid/run over with my car/push off a bridge.
All of the candidates I saw on the website were Republican. I didn't view all of them, but I hi
Re: (Score:1)
Do you believe in these principles?
OUR PRINCIPLES ARE:
* LIMITED GOVERNMENT
* FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
* ADHERENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
* REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE TO WASHINGTON; NOT WASHINGTON TO THE PEOPLE
Those are the requirements to have this organization's support. Do you know a Democrat who holds to all these principles? Your complaint seems to originate that you only find fish in t
Re: (Score:1)
"Limited government" - Does that mean that you'll help abolish prohibition, and reduce our prison population by half? I only ask because it seems that subject hardly ever comes up, and it's a hell of lot more important than gay marriage, flag burning, and all the other distractions they come up with. And a few more brothers will be able to show up at the gatherings.
Re: (Score:1)
I have fairly strong libertarian tendencies, so I wouldn't have a problem with legalizing the use of most/all drugs that are currently illegal. I'm all for letting our normal laws of driving while intoxicated and such in place. But then even beyond a druggies paradise I am all for allowing employers to put restrictions on drug use and testing their employees all they want to enforce their policies. Personal liberty has to also allow people to fail.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, but have you seen anybody out there with a sign demanding legalization? The issue is off the radar there. I glad you're seem to have no problem with it, but is anybody bringing it up at any of the meetings? Have you? Besides it being something about the "druggies"? I highly doubt it, but would love to be proven wrong. I would think that dragging up to a million people through the system would necessitate doing the right thing post haste. Rules against public intoxication are fine.. sans the random che
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't on their radar. But then neither do they have a plank on jay walking. The folks behind this movement define the movement. Get involved if you want to influence the movement. Or better yet start your own focused on decriminalizing drugs.
A private business should have the right to freely associate with whomever they want. Therefore, if they make it a requirement to drug test their employees, so be it. If they only drug test the employees who have blue eyes, that is their call.
Re: (Score:1)
But then neither do they have a plank on jay walking.
People aren't suffering in prison for jay walking. But here again, I suppose you(editorial) need to trivialize it to avoid dealing with it. "dehumanize" the enemy, that's the ticket.
A private business should have the right to freely associate with whomever they want...
In the vacuum of the individual that might work out. What a person does in his double-wide matters not. What you do in public, or to the public is a different matter. Business is not private
Re: (Score:1)
People aren't suffering in prison for jay walking. But here again, I suppose you(editorial) need to trivialize it to avoid dealing with it. "dehumanize" the enemy, that's the ticket.
And now you are just trolling.
For the middle part of your comment...
I think the idea that the government issues licenses to run a business is wrong. The idea that I must first seek permission to have a livelyhood is repulsive and serves no one but statists and existing businesses. Some of the early proponents of licensing busi
Re: (Score:1)
Not trolling. I just find it ironic that you complain about government intrusion into our lives, yet ignore one of the biggest ones. Why this bias against personal vice while the grand larceny goes unnoticed?
I think the idea that the government issues licenses to run a business is wrong.
For local mom and pops, you would be right. But any business that affects third parties (displaces people, contaminates the ground, air, or water, the economy etc) must be watched closely, and possibly regulated. These thing
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not interested in pushing to legalize drugs. If it happens great. But I'm also not interested in legalizing jay walking either. You really seem on fire for legalizing drugs, which is great. Go at it. Any further comments on the topic will be ignored.
Property rights can be enforced (contamination, past the property line, etc...) just fine without a business registering. Additionally, I am against business taxes beyond property taxes. Taxes simply increase the cost of goods which is then passed alo
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm fire for getting innocent people out of prison. Since it doesn't affect your personally, I really don't expect you to help out. Just don't get too upset when we refuse to fight your wars against the monsters you create. I'm just saying your priorities are a bit messed up. But hey.. every penny counts. You can spend your life counting yours.. I'm gonna grab a beer. And I'll raise a fatty to you. - Cheers
PS You vague reply about subsidies didn't answer my question.. I'm cool with that. I won't push it
Re: (Score:1)
In general I am against business subsidies. There are certain cases where it might make sense for short term to allow retooling of an industry, but it would require special consideration. Such instances might be in the case of losing a strategic manufacturing capability and a short term investment would allow a retooling to allow the country to retain the capability.
Re: (Score:1)
But helping some poor schlub get his ruptured appendix removed is completely off the table... Gotta prop up "too big to fail", but fuck me...Okay I get it. See, I know where you all are coming from. I've been there, all comfy in my Naugahyde La-Z-Boy and shit. I guess the difference between you and me is I don't cling. Because when you do, you lose. And the bad guy always wins. I don't know if you could ever understand the feeling, the sheer serenity..
And now for shits and giggles, I'll ask one more time,
Re: (Score:1)
And now you are just getting stupid. But hey. That's fine. We need those people too, I guess.
Lets see. I said short term. I said strategic. Tobacco, dairy, corn, and many others do not fit either category. Therefore, one would have to assume I do not support them.
Re: (Score:1)
And now you are just getting stupid.
Ah cool, found a soft spot..
Don't like to assume anything, only to have you accuse me of that. Best to hear you say it outright. I'm only trying to tell you that this "tea party" thing is full [washingtonpost.com] of it [boston.com].. And you seem to claim that you know best what the government should and shouldn't do. There appears to be at least 50 million who disagree. The subsidies that you're ok with are no more legal than the ones other people want. And the other thing is that when you lose the vote
Re: (Score:1)
One of their supported candidates has both "pro-life God Says Protect The Babies" and "Aggressive Military Policy" statements on his website.
I can respect people who hold a pro-human life belief. I have more problems respecting people who hold a pro-white-American-baby-life belief.