The extreme right vs everybody else in '12

With Palin, Trump, Bachmann, and now Perry, we know the '12 presidential race is all about promoting the new republican base, the Tea Party/extremist agendas, and the opposition will be the rest of voting America which doesn't subscribe to their myopic Taliban approach to stifling freedoms and all that made America worth fighting for.
The line in the sand has been drawn, it's a clearly defined battle. Extremist agendas that go against what good this country is about vs those who want to preserve our positive gains and not slide back into the problems we've barely avoided.

 

There is essentially an unholy alliance between establishment Republicans and Democrats at this moment, who are trying to ward off the fundamentalist faction of Tea Partiers and Libertarians. Nobody could have expected that the political landscape would have evolved this much.

 

Yeah... Bachman/Perry being put up there as solutions by anyone... just reminded my of why I'll not vote Conservative or Republican (again) for the rest of my life.

 

The USA
42% Conservative
39% Independent
19% Liberal Whack Job


......the days of the 19% running this country in to the ground are over......but I realize its going to take another political ass whooping in 2012 for you and your ilk to realize it.
.
.
.
.

 

Your premise is inaccurate from the start. 2012 is really (if you've been paying attention) about the far left (using the media to cater to moderates, i.e. people too busy to know their head from their ass) vs Americans. You crazy radicals are trying to stick your nose into more and more aspects of the people's lives and we're tired of it.

 

How did you calculate those percentages? I thnk you need to look up the amount of registered voters from each party,and then analyze ideological distinctions from there.

 

True.

True too.

 

No group should be considered radical at this point. Even the Tea Party isn't radical, just fundamentally oriented in order to suit their political and ideological needs.

 

I consider Marxist/socialist apologists radical. U.S. Constitution defenders? Not so much.

 

So, what do you believe/think an example of "radical" would be?

 

God forbid that anyone and/or group would want to put a stop to the irrational spending in DC. do you think the Rinos and Dems might be scared they might have to cut back on their outrageous salaries/pensions?? No wonder this country is so screwed up. I am hoping there are still some adults out there that realize one has to live within their means.

 

Historically speaking, I would consider the Sans-culottes of the French Revolution to be radicals. I would consider Timothy McVeigh to be a radical. I would consider Warren Jeffs to be a radical.

These are two historical examples of radicals. The Tea Party are ideological fundamentalists.

In the context of politics, most people consider a radical someone who wants extensive change. As a result, I would understand why someone would call the Tea Party radical. However, most Tea Party members want a return to strict constitutional interpretation, something that hasn't been ideologically evident on a large scale in this nation since the political descendants of the anti-federalists. Therefore, I consider the Tea Party more nostalgic than radical.

 

My statement was merely an analysis of our political landscape, that was not intended to be biased. I realize that our nation must within its means, but these "means" must require a highly intelligent outlook of our spending problems, and evaluation of what absolutely can be cut, and what absolutely cannot, and everything in between, in order to achieve optimal government efficiency. It will require an all-of-the-above policy consideration, not policy from one particular area of the political sphere.

 

You have a very warped view of what you consider extremist. You are attacking and condeming pretty much the majority of regular, good, decent, hard working American people. Perhaps it is not them that are the extremists. Perhaps it is you.

 

Good to know you'll vote Communist Democrat from now on.

 

While they are nostalgic they are definitively radical as they want to annihalate modern America that has existed for three generations. They want to destroy the very fabric of America, much of which is fully part of our culture now, so that is unquestionably radical.

 

After looking up a few defintions of "radical" in the dictionary, I would consider the Tea Party to be radical. However, they are radical in the context of the word defined as "favoring drastic political, economic, and social reforms." Specifically for the Tea Party, they are nostalgic, or regressive radicalists, looking to return to establish an ideology of strict Constitutional restraint, which hasn't been seen since Jefferson's interpretation of the chartering of the first national bank in the context of the Constitution.

 

You sound so reasonable! Of course, all this measured response likely ends when we start to vehemently disagree with what can be cut, and what cannot. "Optimal Government Efficiency" is not my goal. Minimum size is.

 

Going back to some topics of the constitution is regressive and nostalgic. You must progress in freedoms, and many points of the constitution today are outdated, and need to be changed. Thing that Tea Party won't do.

And the main members of the Tea Party are truely conservative people, extremist christians,... and they remember me the fascism.

 

3 generations? The changes to which the TEA Party objects have been slowly brought about over 3 generations; they weren't whole-sale implemented.

But: let's go with your version for a moment. I would claim (and you may even agree) that those who brought about these 'changes' were radicals, as they created change. You may even agree.

Would you? Good.

They're the ones that brought about these 'changes'. So now, the TEA Party recognizes that these 'changes' haven't benefitted the country, so they want to change things back.

That's radical? Then give me more of that. To me, it simply appears wise.

 

This............

 

Besides cuts, we must also utilize highly intelligent reforms that make programs and agencies more economical, yet ensure their efficiency in the short term and future.

Of course you and I will have disagreements on what to cut and what not to cut, especially when one favors minimalist government over efficient government.

 

The programs and agencies you want to assure are "more efficient", I largely want to ensure go extinct.

I reject your premise. My home has an extremely efficient hydronic heating system. I would not use it to heat my yard.

 

Well, unfortunately for you, a home heating system is not the same as a national government.

 

Analogies escape you?