Comment

Comment by FCTP on August 29, 2010 at 7:44pm

The problem with libertarians is this: They are self-righteous and judgmental and if you don't think like them, you are wrong. Sounds very much like the rest of the politicians out there.

We have grown tired of that behavior. When the tea party movement started in 2009, we were attacked by libertarians who thought we were suppose to adhere to their philosophy and the one thing we did not want was someone else telling us what we should do. Those in the tea party movement have sat back way too long and let everyone else have their say and do their thing and look at the mess we are in because of it.

John, if you want people to see your viewpoint, try being a little more educational than judgmental.

As for Rick Scott, try researching the facts before you call him all the names you have called him. You do not even know him. I do and I know the truth and no matter how much we give out the information about what happened, you and others like you sit stubbornly by and will not listen. I find that a normal behavior with the libertarians so that's why I have not been inclined towards your movement.

Another thing too -- we cannot change your mind as it is set in concrete, stone and a boulder -- so I'll not add anymore here...except to add this

"Are you guys okay with this debate or do you want me to shut this post down?" It's your call so just let me know.

Billie

Comment by Tracy on August 29, 2010 at 5:21pm

" But by and by people sought to use this to advance their their own causes. The libertarian ideals of limited government were co-opted by conservatives. "

Actually libertarians and true conservatives are very similar (not the big guv nanny state types, what you call a neocon).They just differ in a some key social and economic areas.I agree that government has no place in legislating morality,and I don't like government partnering with business,because they tend to look out for each others interest. I don't really think the government has a right to do many of the things that we have seen done over the years .But you do a disservice when you paint the tea party as being co-opted. There is plenty of room to share information and opinions if you can accept that your fellow tea partiers may differ in thier opinions and differ on how to accomplish a shared goal.That's why I'm glad that the tea party does not endorse anyone.That way we are free to engage in debate over candidates and policies and free to make up our own minds about who we will vote for.

Comment by Tracy on August 29, 2010 at 8:15am

You WERE trying to identify by association, that isn't fair and you know it.

I identified her first by her own policy,I then posted info on her associations and endorsements and other articles...After all that is part of getting to know a candidate.
For your line of reasoning to stand you would first have to assume that there is something inherently wrong with her associations and endorsements thereby making her look guilty to be involved with them.
Is that why her endorsements are controversial to you ? Why else would it be bad to point out relevent info about a candidate unless you believe that this is somehow damaging or bad for the candidate?
(democrats ALWAYS have the support of unions,what's so surprising there?)

Comment by Joseph Theodore Troupe on August 28, 2010 at 6:14pm

If Scott where guilty of fraud as some suggest, why wasn't he found guilty and why is he not serving time for the crimes? The only sin for which he might be guilty is lack of good audit controls and inadequate procedures for reporting back to him any problems his audit staff were to discover.

That is my problem with Scott. Perhaps he has learned a valuable lesson in his lack of audit controls in his companies by which he can now control the State Government. He will still make a better and more effective governor than will a Liberal Democrat any day.

Comment by Morgan Orlins on August 28, 2010 at 6:01pm

Tamara you are a dogged propagandist! :-) Whatever you do, don't let logic intrude.
Here's a post from a former federal agent (Rev. Rick Stoneking) about Rick Scott and the HCA case:

"He most likely is under a gag order about the outcome but we do know this.

1. It is a fact that he was not involved in this fraud issue.
2. It is a fact that he was not aware of the fraudulent activity going on.
3. We know 1 & 2 are facts because the FBI is who determined he was not involved and in fact they never even interviewed him!

In spite of the fact he had no involvement in, nor knowledge of, the fraudulent activity as CEO he DID take responsibility for it. To me, that sounds like a pretty stand up guy.

As a former federal agent myself, I will take the FBI's word for it that Scott was not involved in the fraud and had no knowledge of it.

I would just ask all of you who are bad mouthing and falsely accusing Scott of something he was cleared entirely of to justify your rants and accusations with a source who has equal credibility with the FBI."

Comment by tamara stephenson on August 28, 2010 at 5:49pm

Rick Scott is a criminal because the company that he founded and led, admitted guilt. that's good enough for me. what i don't understand is why his clear malfeasance, enough so that the board of the company that he founded, made him step down, is not being questioned at all by anyone on this site? i truly don't get it. Rick Scott is not the lesser of two evils. He can say whatever he likes, the man has no honor. he won't even allow anyone to read the depositions because it's a "private legal matter". yes, it's private if you're running for public office. that is ridiculous. call me what you will, he will not get this tea partier's vote.

Comment by Tracy on August 28, 2010 at 12:05pm

Forgot to mention that in the judicial sense social justice would mean that instead of deciding guilt or innocence on just the facts and evidence ,the "social justice "court will take into account other factors such as race ,gender, and social standing.It is the unequal application of law.Therefore it is the opposite of "fair" and blind. It provides certain "favored" classes of citizens extra protections that other citizens do not get on the basis of those factors.There is nothing "fair"about policies such as these.
It brings to mind the book Animal Farm and this quote " All animals are equal... But some are more equal than others"

Comment by Morgan Orlins on August 28, 2010 at 10:40am

Great comments ya'll! I despise class warfare because it pits groups of people against each other unnecessarily and ONLY serves the purposes of those who would divide us rather than unite us. The "rich" didn't get that way by "scr@wing" the poor. Over 90% of the time they got wealthy by working and or studying hard and smart. When I grow up I'd LOVE to be rich. :-) I think I'll write about class warfare.

Comment by Tracy on August 28, 2010 at 9:45am

I've got one thing I'd like to add on class envy and what the media likes to call "those evil rich people" I'd love to see a show of hands out there from all of those people who have ever been employed by and kept employment from a poor person...
Think about it.

Comment by Joseph Theodore Troupe on August 28, 2010 at 8:57am

The only good Democrat is one who is not elected to public office. Scott is the lesser of two evils, and he will get my vote for Governor even tho he was not my first choice in the Primary. I am tired of the tax and spend policies the Democrats have foisted upon the electorate. We need smaller government, less taxes and less services.....

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page