Are today's Tea Partiers the new New Leftists from the 60's?

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html

He makes an interesting point, but are they really that similar? Yeah, they both want to eliminate corruptness in government, but do the Tea Partiers really want to dismantle the entire government and start over?

For you Constructionists, I'd have to say that not ALL of the government needs to be taken out. Some of it's still good (I guess at least in theory), so scaling-back is definitely necessary, a few personnel changes, too, but let's not scrap the whole thing.

Can we get back to the Constitution the founders wrote and work from there?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Locked withing 7 pages...

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

You should read some of the user comments on the article...

[Leroy Lizard]

(deleted)

Yeah, yeah, I know.

[Stitch Face]

The user comments on just about any article from any political website nowadays make the interactions on here look like a love-in.

[ndpruitt03]

The leftist of the 60s are now your political leaders.

[Leroy Lizard]

William Ayers planted bombs in government buildings and is now highly lauded on the Left.

[Half a Hundred]

The leftist of the 60s are now your political leaders.

They also happen to be in charge of the Republican Party.

[ndpruitt03]

They also happen to be in charge of the Republican Party.

Didn't I just say that? A lot of the younger republicans are more conservative though. And the ones from Oklahoma.

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html

He makes an interesting point, but are they really that similar? Yeah, they both want to eliminate corruptness in government, but do the Tea Partiers really want to dismantle the entire government and start over?

For you Constructionists, I'd have to say that not ALL of the government needs to be taken out. Some of it's still good (I guess at least in theory), so scaling-back is definitely necessary, a few personnel changes, too, but let's not scrap the whole thing.

Can we get back to the Constitution the founders wrote and work from there?

Like 99/100 people would totally reject living under the Constitution as originally written (conservatives included) if they really understood the impact of it.

Me? Well, I'm that 1 guy out of 100.

[yermom]

The user comments on just about any article from any political website nowadays make the interactions on here look like a love-in.

yeah? well **** you!

[delhalew]

Like 99/100 people would totally reject living under the Constitution as originally written (conservatives included) if they really understood the impact of it.

Me? Well, I'm that 1 guy out of 100.

Make that 2 out of 200 hundred. The nation of puzzies we have become...life without leviathon would send most of the nation into shock. Good thing they have the right to succede ( no matter what honest Abe said).
Give me an article 5 convention.

[delhalew]

BTW, I think that article is ****tarded. Mainly because the different motivations of the two groups means everything. Although, the Tea Party is ripe for being coopted by estabishment republicans, which would render it useless.

[Okla-homey]

Like 99/100 people would totally reject living under the Constitution (conservatives included) as interpreted by me and my crack-pot fringe pals.


fixed it.

[XingTheRubicon]

Well, other than the one group is gainfully employed and the previous group was a bunch of dumb*ss losers living off handouts and crumbs from their parents, they're pretty similar.

[King Crimson]

that the hippies/baby boomers were protesting a democratic POTUS is almost unthinkable in today's black/white partisan political discourse.

that the boomers totally "sold out" in the 80s is a different, but interesting story. love those boomer-centric commercials doing Tai Chi on the beach, buying a vintage VW bus with your 401k, jamming to some Jimi, etc. yeah, you still got it, cool bros....meanwhile looking down the old nose at all subsequent generations. giving them derogatory names like "Gen X" or "the Nintendo Generation"...baby boomers, most moralizing group of peeps of all time who managed to ruin the economy of the most powerful nation on earth.

LOL.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I don't know about that. The more principled laftists are some of Obama's biggest critics. It makes the stuff we hear about him here tame.

[1890MilesToNorman]

principled laftists

Them and Unicorns.

[Leroy Lizard]

that the hippies/baby boomers were protesting a democratic POTUS is almost unthinkable in today's black/white partisan political discourse.

They still fawn over JFK. Why? Young, handsome, good speaker. That's all it takes.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

Like 99/100 people would totally reject living under the Constitution as originally written (conservatives included) if they really understood the impact of it.

Me? Well, I'm that 1 guy out of 100.

That's why I said START from there. Let's trim all the fat and bull**** government programs and build from there.

But that can't happen til we get rid of the self-entitled, someone-else-will-pay-for-it *********s on both sides of the aisle.

[Okla-homey]

They still fawn over JFK. Why? Young, handsome, good speaker. That's all it takes.

You forgot the part about how JFK scored more tail than a ladies room toilet seat at Gaylord Memorial Stadium at halftime. ;)

[King Crimson]

i suppose Ron Reagan was all about substance, and not charisma and smooth talk.

this is one of my fave GOP/conservative/"constitutionalists" fetishes. Reagan was all substance and rigor, but Obama or JFK was a slickster.

[delhalew]

i suppose Ron Reagan was all about substance, and not charisma and smooth talk.

this is one of my fave GOP/conservative/"constitutionalists" fetishes. Reagan was all substance and rigor, but Obama or JFK was a slickster.

To lump those three together is pretty insulting. Reagan with his good and bad qualities was a capital (R) republican.

Very different from little r republicanism, meaning federalist...as in our union is supposed to be a republic.

[Leroy Lizard]

i suppose Ron Reagan was all about substance, and not charisma and smooth talk.

this is one of my fave GOP/conservative/"constitutionalists" fetishes. Reagan was all substance and rigor, but Obama or JFK was a slickster.

Reagan was probably more substance than any president we have had in a long time. Sure, he had charm (and to some, good looks), but he got'er done too, even to the point of landing him in hot water. Definitely not a do-nothing president.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And he had a cowboy hat!

[Half a Hundred]

Reagan was probably more substance than any president we have had in a long time. Sure, he had charm (and to some, good looks), but he got'er done too, even to the point of landing him in hot water. Definitely not a do-nothing president.

It's pretty much an established historical fact that the only input Reagan had on the policymaking process was the final yes or no, and that his subordinates in the administration had practically complete control over the substantive aspects of that process.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's pretty much an established historical fact that the only input Reagan had on the policymaking process was the final yes or no, and that his subordinates in the administration had practically complete control over the substantive aspects of that process.

It doesn't matter. He's the head honcho. Whether he relies on subordinates to lay the groundwork is just a matter of leadership style, much like Switzer's.

BTW, you can't have a "pretty much established historical fact." It's either a fact, or it isn't.

[ndpruitt03]

actually triple post.

[ndpruitt03]

oops double post.

[ndpruitt03]

It's pretty much an established historical fact that the only input Reagan had on the policymaking process was the final yes or no, and that his subordinates in the administration had practically complete control over the substantive aspects of that process.

you can pretty much say that for any president in recent history including the current one.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Posts #13, 15 and 24 are the pertinent responses, here.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Ronald Reagan could hit a target from over 1000 yards and has a certificate to prove it.

[Harry Beanbag]

And Ronald Reagan didn't just see bazookas and hand grenades at the California Gun Show, he was selling them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Many of today's Tea Partiers are those from the same generation of '60's protesters. Today' protesters are the ONES WHO DIDN'T PROTEST in the 1960's