United Liberty
A Hot Cup of TEA
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 11:31am | posted by Louis DeBroux
Recently, the TEA Party movement celebrated its first anniversary. At first the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party activists were dismissed as a few grumpy right-wingers upset that America elected a black president. They were given little credence beyond being an amusing political side show. That soon changed. On April 15th hundreds of thousands of average Americans showed up at protest rallies across the nation, outraged at the “stimulus” package of goodies doled out to special interests, liberal activism organizations and Democrat pet projects. CNN reported that a few thousand people showed up at the rally in Atlanta, but I was there and can assure you that it was close to ten-fold that amount. It was shoulder-to-shoulder for about four blocks in one direction, not counting the people on the side streets.
Once they could no longer be dismissed as a fringe element, TEA Party activists were labeled as “Astro-turf” (fake grass roots), accused of being flunkies of Big Corporate America, mindlessly doing the bidding of their masters. They were accused of being a fabrication of FOX News and the Republican Party. They were accused of being everything except what they are…average Americans, generally with traditional conservative values, who were fed up over 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush politics, two political parties who paid only lip service to the people they claimed to serve while engaging in a bacchanalian orgy of political perks, who had finally been pushed over the edge by a pork-laden spending bill of almost $800 billion. They were saying “Enough is enough!”, and they were going to make their voices be heard.
Contrary to the claims of the left and the MSM, the TEA Party groups are not affiliated with the Republican Party. For that matter they are barely associated with each other. What we refer to as TEA Party groups are an amalgam of grassroots groups with various causes and agendas (although most have as a large part of their goal the reduction of the size and power of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order). Far from embracing the Republican Party, these groups look at the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils. It’s not that they think Republicans are great…just marginally better than Democrats. In fact, at a number of the TEA Party rallies, politicians were invited to come but were not allowed to speak. They were there to listen to the voice of the people, not to tell them what the politicians think is best for them. They have had enough of a patronizing, condescending political oligarchy which dictates their lives and spends them into oblivion.
If the truth be told, I don’t want to see any formal ties between the TEA Party movement and the Republican Party, and I say that as a member of my county GOP executive committee. The political party structure performs an important function, as do the TEA Party groups. In many cases, the goals are overlapping and we can work together. However, I see the TEA Party as a watchdog against further abuses and usurpations by government at all levels. Regardless of which party is in power, they need to be watched and distrusted to some degree.
In 1994, Republicans shocked the nation and took control of the House and Senate for the first time in four decades, in part because of the Newt Gingrich-engineered Contract With America. Among the promises made were the elimination of the federal Department of Education, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, an independent auditing agency to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, and the implementation of zero-based line budgeting. The actual results were far different (Gingrich did bring these items up for a vote but some were not passed and some that were passed were vetoed by Clinton).
The reason Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 was not that America had embraced the Pelosi/Reid/Obama leftist agenda, but because they were angry and disillusioned by Republicans that had failed to keep their promises. The actual implementation of fiscal responsibility and a reduction in the size of the federal government never materialized. Republicans controlled the House, Senate and presidency after Bush was elected. And what did we get to show for it? We got tax cuts (good) but no corresponding spending cuts (bad), so the deficits increased. We got the Bridge to Nowhere, an addiction to pork spending and the largest expansion in welfare since LBJ with the Medicare Part D program, the first bailout and TARP. Instead of eliminating the federal DOE we got No Child Left Behind and a skyrocketing education budget. Instead of reducing the power of the federal government, we got Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA and a maze confusing regulations. The Federal Register is 25-feet thick, yet failed to prevent the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. Nor did SarbOx prevent the collapse of the financial/mortgage industry. What it did do was cost businesses billions in compliance costs and add more bureaucratic jobs in government. And let’s not forget another Republican gem, the Incumbent Protection and Free Speech Suppression Act, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
Barring a complete meltdown, Republicans are set to gain a large number of seats in Congress in 2010, with the outside possibility of retaking the majorities. However, that alone does not guarantee a return to constitutional government. To get that, we need a vigilant citizenry that has educated themselves on the Constitution and the legacy of freedom and individual rights left us by our Founding Fathers, who will hold politicians accountable. The TEA Party patriots are quickly becoming that vanguard of freedom. And so I say, Happy Birthday patriots, and many more.
The TEA party should be building guillotines not bridges for the “policitical” class.
political typo…
Anon,
I understand the sentiment but am wary of going to such extremes at this point. The fact is that we are at this point only because few Americans have bothered to read the Constitution and understand it. Politicians are only doing what we allow them to do. Remember a few years ago when two attempts were made to pass the McCain-Kennedy immigration “reform”/amnesty bill? President Bush supported it, both parties and both houses of Congress supported it, yet it did not pass. Why not? Because the American people responded with such an outpouring of fury that the politicians soon abandoned their plans.
If the majority of Americans understood the Constitution and responded with the same level of fury at the attempted takeover of health care, or the financial sector, or the president firing the CEO of a private corporation, or runaway spending, or any number of the other violations of Constutional, limited government rule, this would be handled without any violence.
Jefferson said that the tree of liberty needed to be nourished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, and that is true. However, it would be unwise to take that recourse unnecessarily when we can accomplish the same goals through peaceful means.
The President didn’t fire any CEOs and you do not understand the Constituton any better than any of the other Tea Baggers.
And if you think Republicans are not the ones running the Tea Parties than you’re just dumb. We know how they started, and we know the brains behind them. Don’t tell me they’re not run and funded by Republicans.
The Tea Parties are irrelevant, and are proving just what kind of bigots they really are. The only reason they’ve gotten so much attention is because of Fox News’s Right Wing agenda in trying to make them appear larger and more significant than they really are.
Anonymous,
Thank you for your brilliant analysis and insightful commentary. What a compelling argument you make. You are obviously a product of our public school system. To clarify a few points…those that fight against an expansive and overreaching federal government are TEA Partiers, not teabaggers. Good conservatives like me leave the teabagging up to liberals like you and Anderson Cooper (who was the one that first introduced me to the term). It sounds disgusting to me, but I will not judge you for what you and your life partner do within the privacy of your home.
I understand that you are a liberal so you feel completely free to speak and act independently of rational thought, but I can assure you that the TEA Parties are not run by Republicans. I’ve been to a number of TEA Party events and some of the angriest comments are directed at Republicans, who betrayed conservative principles once in office. Just like I don’t assume that you are a sexual deviant, a babykiller, or a treehugger who cares more about the snail darter than a human life just because you are a liberal, I’d appreciate the reciprocal respect and not assume you know the thoughts and motivations of the TEA Party activists unless you’ve actually taken the time to meet and speak with them. If you did that then you would understand how moronic you sound as you regurgitate the acid-tongued, incoherent ramblings of Keith Olbermann. So just once, try to form a thought all by yourself that is based on actual logic. I promise you, it is invigorating. But then, new experiences so often are…
Louis, I noticed you didn’t bother to back up your falsehood that Obama fired any CEOs. Attacking those who call you out for spilling basic RIGHT WING talking points without ANYTHING to back them up, is hardly “compelling.”
Oh, and which private school did you attend? According to your BIO you have no educational background worth mentioning, so why attack people for being products of the public education system when you are clearly in that same group?
And are you so dumb as think many of your Right Wing priests are not products of that same system? You know, people like Ronald Reagan?
I know it probably drives you nuts that the government doesn’t want rednecks like yourself brainwashing your own kids into thinking crazy things, such as that evolution isn’t a fact, but the people who make these decisions are far brighter than yourself.
The funny thing is you think you represent education but you only represent ignorance, which was just shown in your article above. And before you challenge me to refute your facts, you first have to present some. Make an argument. All you did was puke the usual talking points from Hannity.
Jason,
I’ll try and use smaller words so you can understand, okay? I apologize for talking over your head. I’ll take your comments point by point.
Obama effectively fired Wagoner as the CEO of General Motors (see Wall Street Journal article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836090755767077.html) and most of the Board of Directors. He may not have done it personally, but he threatened to withhold bailout money for GM and let it go under unless his wishes were complied with, which is effectively the same thing. This is an egregious abuse of government power, intervening in the free market. Ironically, in yet another example of government incompetence, Fritz Henderson (put in as CEO after Wagoner), Ed Whitacre and others forced out by the Obama administration have been hired as consultants at $3000/hour, with stock options and other payment awards (http://www.manufacturing.net/News-GM-Rehires-Former-CEO-Henderson-022210…).
As far as my educational background, I attended Georgia public schools and have taken classes at KSU and North Metro Tech, although I do not have a degree. My mother died of cancer when I was 13 and I was made a “ward of the state”, and after graduating high school I immediately had to take on a full time job and several part time jobs just to provide for myself because I had no one to fund my education, or my basic subsistence for that matter (where where you liberals then?). I was married at 19 with my first child on the way shortly after that, and I’m now a father of eight fantastic children that I home-school with my wife, which leaves little time in the present to take formal classes. I’m sorry my personal circumstances were not such that I could have met your rigorous educational qualifications in order to engage in a debate. I’ve tried to make up for it though by being a voracious reader of various books on American and world history, economics, politics and so forth.
Also, to clarify, I am not attacking people for being products of the public education system. I am attacking the system itself. Some people manage to rise above the impediment of having attended the public school system and are successful regardless. But the fact remains that the system, by every objective metric, is a dismal failure. I’ve referred to various independent government and think-tank studies as noted in the original article, and I ask once again that you refute a single statement that I have made. You’ve attacked the messenger but have failed to make a dent in the message.
You’ve called me a redneck (how would you know?), implied that I am uneducated, mis-characterized my assertions, called me dumb, etc. Yet apparently you are not intelligent enough to refute my argument. Sucks to be you, huh?
For your final points, I do not “represent education”, whatever that means. I believe in macro-evolution but not micro-evolution or Darwinism, and even Darwin’s own supporters and colleagues knocked huge holes in his theory which he was unable to bridge. We treat Darwinism as untouchable, as a liberal religion, when the truth is that Darwin’s personal writings are replete with his worries about the flaws in his theory being exposed.
You are right that I do not want the government brainwashing my children, which is why I home-school. My children start their day with prayer, scripture reading, pledge to the flag and then into the core curriculum. My children all have tested 3-4 grade levels above their age on the same standardized tests administered by the public schools, my oldest son and second daughter are involved in the county 4-H program and have both mastered at the state level, my son has paged at the capitol three times. My children have been involved in Meals on Wheels for several years and my oldest son was asked to start managing the kitchen staff for the program a few months ago. All in all, I think I’ll put my kids up against any random child that is a product of the public school system.
Now, I think that I have addressed all of your comments. I once again issue the challenge to refute a single point that I made in the post. Or you can do what most liberals do and continue the ad hominem attacks and character assassination of those that disagree with you. Either way, I fear your sub-par intelligence and integrity will continue to be exposed.
Jason, you’re out of line.
Obama didn’t fire any CEOs, no. But Louis is right about having the same effect by threatening to withhold TARP funds. My question is so what? The CEO was given an opportunity to come up with a viable plan and when he failed to do so, Obama appropriately refused to put money into a company that was being run by incompetence. But Louis doesn’t tell his readers the whole story; just the part where “government” intrudes where it doesn’t belong. But government is making an investment here, so it can rightly act as a shareholder. Louis sees it differently as if the “government” is a group of Democrats working out a crazy plan to take over all aspects of the economy. As if any of these politicians wouldn’t prefer to see these corporations handle their own business without the need of government assistance. Why the heck would he invest our tax dollars into a failing company that is run by an incompetent CEO? Does Louis have an answer? Would he be happier to know our tax dollars were dumped into a company that made no serious effort to change its sloppy ways of doing business? He avoids this dilemma by simply ignoring it, as he doesn’t inform his readers about the whole story about the so-called “firing” of a CEO who was shamed into resignation.
I know Louis personally and I can assure you he is no moron, whatever schools he has or hasn’t attended. I believe his assertions can be discussed without any of the personal barbs.
If I had to sum up Louis flawed method in a nut shell, I would have to say that he has fallen victim to the correlation = causation fallacy. All of his posts I’ve read are essentially the same. He throws out so many anecdotes – with varying degrees of validity - and then uses them to illicitly conclude why they are what they are. And of course the conclusions are almost always tied to a Right Wing talking point.
For example, Public education on the whole sucks. Duh! He can produce plenty of educated commentary to support that fact. His assertion isn’t false, but his conclusion is demonstrably false. The illicit conclusion is that it sucks simply because it is run by the government. This explanation doesn’t do justice to a complex problem that requires more nuanced thinking. Another example of government supposedly intruding on our freedom is that we are not allowed to sell milk that comes straight from the tit. This upsets Louis and he uses it as an example that government is usurping authority it shouldn’t have. What Louis doesn’t understand is that this is not due to some government desire to take over of the dairy system, but rather the result of corporate influence in politics, which ironically enough, Louis believes should be allowed with no limit. For example, the immoral corporation Monsanto doesn’t want people selling milk without their product, so they lobby the hell out of the lawmakers who can make sure their monopoly is secure. So what is really the problem here, the gun or the person firing it? If one follows the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” logic, then we can hardly blame the government since it is merely a weapon in the hands of higher corporate powers who actually purchase them and then pull the trigger. But Louis doesn’t think about it this way.
Furthermore, if government funded education sucks simply because the government can’t offer quality education and compete in the free market, then how does Louis explain the Public University System which produces some of the brightest minds around? All he talks about is the Public school system at the elementary-high school levels, which any expert in the field will tell you this has everything to do with geography and nothing to do with whose actually managing it. I went to one of the best schools in Georgia (and the nation) at the time, and I remember there were several people who scored perfect on the SAT. This was a public school in the metro-Atlanta area, I actually came from a private school in Alabama. I remember when I made the transfer during my sophomore year, the math class was more advanced than the one I had been attending at the private school, and I required extra tutoring just to keep up. And I was usually an A-B student before the transfer. How does Louis explain that?
The fact is, if left to the free market, many poor neighborhoods would have absolutely no education offered to them at all because no private company is going to start a school in areas that do not produce profit. The result of course is that the median level of education in the country will plummet, as it would be treated strictly as a commodity like healthcare and caviar, where only those who can afford it will be in the market for it. Is that Louis’ answer? He isn’t very lucid when it comes to proposed answers. He’s very big on complaining and foisting blame, however.
With respect to his children, they are being raised in a Mormon household which probably means they are being raised with the highest standards of ethic and respect for education. From what I know of Louis I have no doubt they are being raised properly with all the love and devotion a father could possibly provide. However, I can think of several people in that faith who graduated early from the same public high school I did. So the common denominator here is not necessarily “private education.” The common denominator is more likely to be found in one of several possible social elements. Studies have shown that home schooled kids score better for the same reasons middle-upper class children score better. They tend to be raised in two-parent families who tend to instill an appreciation for education in the children, and they tend to have the financially liberty to teach them personally.
If the Public School system could simply divorce itself from the poorer class, then we’d see scores comparable to those produced by private schooling. But the Public School system doesn’t have that luxury. It has to take in everyone, and there are some neighborhoods where quality education simply isn’t feasible. So it is wrong to say “private” education produces brighter children simply because the government isn’t involved. That kind of argument will not stand the test of scrutiny.
Jason,
Kevin failed to introduce himself properly. Kevin is an old friend that has made it his personal mission in life to convince anyone who will listen that I am a Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck zombie that can not think independently. We have had many long and involved discussions which have proven fruitless and often devolve into personal insult. I have told him repeatedly that I have no desire to continue to debate him because of the nasty spirit which accompanies it, but apparently he is like an girlfriend that can not handle the breakup. He has pursued me from the original blog I was asked to write for, to Facebook, and now to here. When I get exhausted and stop engaging him in one forum he searches until he finds another forum he can hunt me to. It seems that he is obsessed with proving me wrong and can’t handle my refusal to engage him.
Having said that, a few corrections on his misrepresentations of my views.
Kevin has misrepresented my views on the bailouts of the financial sector and the domestic auto industry. Since government invested in the companies they obviously have a right to dictate to the recipients the terms under which those funds would be given, including management issues. My problem is that government should not have bailed them out in the first place. Those companies should have suffered the consequences of their poor decisions and failed. Other companies and investors with better ideas and better management would have purchased the assets and managed them better. The need for the products are still there, so it’s not as if those jobs or products would simply disappear, they would just be used under new management.
I have not called for the elimination of public schools, I have called for increased competition by treating private and home-schooling options, through budgetary and tax policy vehicles, the same as public schools. I home-school my children and I have to pay taxes for public schools and then fund my children’s education out of pocket. If Georgia took the current $10k/child and allocated it as a voucher, then children in poor neighborhoods would get the same amount of state money as wealthier families, and would have their options widened and the likelihood of getting a superior education increased.
Interesting that he would bring up the raw milk issue, which I mentioned in passing months ago as an example of government dictating what we can and can’t do. He then goes on to talk about Monsanto buying off politicians, which is probably right. Of course, that just makes my point that government should not be involved in those things for which it has no Constitutional authority. There are plenty of private organizations and agencies (ASE, Underwriters Laboratories, etc.) that provide the same service with far less corporate corruption.
To sum it up, I believe in restricting government to only those roles which have been enumerated by the Constitution. All others are left to the states or the people. I feel that 300 million people are better equipped to manage the details of their lives than 545 elites in Washington. I guess Kevin believes that most people are morons that must have their lives dictated by government. That is what I have inferred anyway, but you’ll have to ask him.
Louis, what happened is this…
I had a response saved to one of your posts last week and instead of scrolling through kudzumollymormon to find out which thread it was in, I simply cut and pasted a short portion of one of your comments and googled it, thinking it would pull up the page I was looking for. Well, it did, along with every other place on the web where you have posted the same article. Hence, that is how I found you on this website. I give you credit for reigniting my interest in political debate, and it will probably prompt me to start my own blogging hobby upon my return to the USA, but please don’t flatter yourself into thinking I’m obssessed with you. As an educator I’ll be inclined to post information will be most useful, and unfortunately, from my experience online so far, that happens to be in the comments sections of your articles.
Now, you say you haven’t called for the elimination of public schools, but you have in the past said that you do not believe it is conctitutional that the government fund education. So is that really a “misrepresentation” of your view? Remember, you think Madison and Jefferson get to say what’s constitutional, not Hamilton, Washington and the rest. And it is perfectly clear you have no idea what you are talking about on most of the subjects you lecture on. This isn’t meant as an insult, and I have tried as nicely as I know how to add perspective to your various slanted rants without offending you or trying to suggest you’re an idiot. I always give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re just an innocent victim of a propaganda campaign. But I guess some people will choose to be offended no matter what.
You want to say you “broke up” (really Louis?) with me because of insults, but I challenge you to ever point to any insults I have provided. When we first engaged discussions you informed me that you were often called a racist, bigot, idiot, right wing puppet, etc, by other Liberals, and that your skin was too thick to be insulted or offended by any of them. I thought you were serious. Guess not. Because I have gone on record saying I don’t think you are stupid or a racist, but that unfortunately you’re on a misguided path that frequently attracts those kinds of people (i.e. tea party).
Just don’t pretend I decided to insult you the way you have others. If I thought you were an idiot I would say so, as others obviously have.
Yes, most of what you say is nearly word for word cut and paste from recent Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, blogs. So while noticing the obvious connections, I can’t just sit by and pretend they’re not related in some way. So I point it out so readers can fully grasp the credibility level of those who agree with you, if they are not your sources as well. And don’t you think it a bit ironic that you want to focus on your kids education while neglecting yoru own? I mean to criticize the Public School system and then allow your kids to be taught by a product of the Public School system… that’s kinda like putting the cart before the horse it seems. And to criticize the system while using the same system to educate yourself… that’s beyond ironic.
I understood why you deleted me from facebook because family never needs to see our dark side of polemics. I would have done the same thing. But some of your friends actually emailed me privately to encourage me to continue engaging you. That is a fact, so call me “delusional” or “unhinged” behind my back all you want, because we all know that you’re the one who is incessantly plastering your long-winded opinion pieces in various online venues, appearing desperate to draw as wide an audience as possible. All I have done is offer an occasional rebuttal. But I’m the one with a chemical imbalance? OK.
I also understand why Molly refuses to post any refutations I provide, because her mission is not to educate, but to instead continue the campaign of disinformation started by her peers.
And I have not misrepresented your views. This is a common rebuttal to those who were never interested in debate to begin with.
Kevin believes most people are morons who need government to dictate their lives?
Now that’s a misrepresentation from hell Louis, and you should be ashamed. All this is is an attempt to poison the well and to rally likeminded supporters to your side via misinformation. As a Tea Party fan I know you have plenty experience with this. And this is rather ironic after your recent article that talks about how most Americans are so stupid, they actually believe we’re a democracy.
Kevin,
You are cyber-stalking me, and frankly it is a bit creepy. I’ve told you repeatedly I have no interest in engaging you further and yet you continue to track me down. What else would you call that? You’ve also hurled plenty of personal insults, as I noted in my last response to you on Kudzu. Anyone can go back and look at your previous posts to see what I am talking about. And why do you feel so compelled to correct what you see as mistakes or misinformation on my part? There are millions of blogs out there. Why do you feel the need to continue to seek me out wherever I am posting? Frankly, I get tired of being lectured by you. You have an overinflated sense of your own intelligence and the rightness of your position, and after months and months of lengthy debate I just grew weary. So let me make it perfectly clear one last time. I have no interest in continued political or philosophical debate with you. I do not fund it enlightening, uplifting or edifying. There are many, many more people out there blogging that you can sink your teeth into. Please go find someone else to stalk.
You also said that “we all know that you’re the one who is incessantly plastering your long-winded opinion pieces in various online venues, appearing desperate to draw as wide an audience as possible.” So let me clue you in. I met with the managing editor of the local newspaper in my capacity as VCC for the local Republican Party. After our conversation he asked me if I would be interested in writing a weekly column, so I said sure, even though I had never written one before. Molly, who had read the weekly articles and the party newsletter, asked me to be a contributor to her blog, so I said I would. I met Brett (the administrator of this website) at a political event and after a conversation about our respective conservative and libertarian philosophies, he asked for copies of my previous articles and then came back and asked me to be a contributor to his website. The other website I post to is run by two attorney brothers that my little sister works for, and she had forwarded them copies of my articles and they contacted me and asked me if I would post to their website, and I said I would. You see a common theme here? Not one of the venues in which I post did I seek out and ask to be a contributor. They all asked me. I am simply writing what I believe and if people enjoy it or agree with me, good for them. If they disagree, good for them to. At the end of the day the only opinions of me I am concerned about is my God and my family.
So please, go find someone else to pester. Go enlighten the world on someone else’s blog or website. Because the fact is, as much as you deny it, you have continually sought me out even after I have asked you not to. You have a lovely wife and daughters. I suggest you spend more time with them and less time online trying to convince the world that I am wrong, if well-meaning, in everything I say.
Well, here is a quick history lesson for ya Louis, since you’re clearly needing one.
On facebook I saw your name on a friend’s friends list a couple of months ago and added you because I had not heard from you in twenty years. Shortly afterwards you sent me an invitation to a blog (kudzumollymormon) where you were posting. After seeing what kind of blog it was, I warned you that you probably didn’t want someone like me to post there. You said I didn’t have to post, but wanted me to know it was there for viewing anyway. Well, after reading a few articles, I was suprised how fanatical you had become and decided chip in. After a few responses you thanked me for participating and said you had no problem with me responding because I always backed up my arguments with data. No harm, no foul up to that point. And to be truthful, I had no idea the extent of your extremism until you started taking offense to anyone criticizing anyone who had anything to do with the Tea Parties. That is when things started to go downhill between us. I guess I should have read all the posts you had written up to that point, but I didn’t, and had no idea just how anti-Obama you were.
Shortly afterwards you wrote an article about Obama vs. Madison which was nothing short of ridiculous. Your blog owner/moderator (Molly) started censoring and/or deleting my posts (for no reason other than the fact that she didn’t like to be refuted) so I decided I would respond at the alternative venue on facebook. I even said as much and you didn’t object to it. Shortly after I wrote up a response I noticed the original article did not appear at facebook, so I asked you to post it there so I could respond. There was obviously a miscommunication because you thought I was asking you to post it to your personal facebook account, which I wasn’t. I wanted you to post it to the kudzu account at facebook. So you posted it on your personal account and announced to all your friends and family that a “Liberal” friend of yours was planning a response. I responded as I said I would, and you got upset with me for doing it. Why? Well your reasoning was that you didn’t like very long posts on your facebook account, but I suspect it had more to do with some of your friends being offended by me criticizing so many Tea Party fanatics. You also announced to your friends (some of whom are also my friends) and family that you had received messages from people saying I am “delusional” and “unhinged.” Why? No idea. The first response I provided to kudzu molly was not at the blog, but on the facebook account and no less than three people on your friends list sent me messages thanking me for correcting your silly rants. One eventually said you were just upset because you didnt think anyone would try to “out-fact-check” you, and you don’t know how to respond to that.
In any event, you said you would post my long response to your article at the kudzu blog (which you never did) and Molly informed me that same day that there was a “discussion” application on the kudzu facebook account where I could post my longer rebuttals. So I posted them there as she suggested. You said you would eventually get around to responding (which you didn’t) but only offered a pithy response on your profile page for your friends to see, about how I totally misrepresent your intentions and arguments as usual. So I figured you would do what you said, and eventually get around to responding. I waited a week or so and then I noticed I was no longer receiving any updates from either you or Molly on facebook, and it was then that I realized the two of you had decided to just delete me from your friends list with no explanation or warning.
Now the point here is this. Between the time you told me to go over and meet you at the blog, and the time I was deleted from your facebook accounts, there was no communication between us. So to say I am stalking you after you “repeatedly” insisted you would never respond to me, is absurd!
I think I posted a response on the blog a week or so ago, but I haven’t been back there since to see if you actually responded. That blog can go more than a week with no activity and it is pretty darned boring as I’m practically the only person on the web who seems to have taken any notice to it. I can’t even get people I invite to take any interest in it. I’d much rather post on forums like facebook or unitedliberty where there is more opportunity for feedback from other bystanders. Even with the facebook tool at her disposal, Molly can’t seem to get anyone else interested in her extremist views.
== You’ve also hurled plenty of personal insults, as I noted in my last response to you on Kudzu.
Not true. But it seems Molly has blocked me from the blog so I guess I won’t be able to see what it was you thought was insulting unless you explain it here. Given your false claim above about how I think government should dictate our lives, I’m losing faith in your ability to properly comprehend what’s been said. You are a black-white thinker, period. You’re blind to shades of grey.
== Anyone can go back and look at your previous posts to see what I am talking about.
Well, of the few people who were actually bored enough to get involved, none of them felt I was being offensive towards you. However, at least a couple of them took offense to your articles.
== And why do you feel so compelled to correct what you see as mistakes or misinformation on my part? There are millions of blogs out there.
As I said, your invitation got me into the whole political phase again. But what makes you think I don’t respond to many other blogs? I most certainly do. Some of them were linked to Molly’s blog. Her blog is like a portal to my online political debate journey. Besides, your posts are relatively infrequent, and I often post elsewhere when you’re taking a break. And your articles require very little effort to refute, but they are usually fraught with falsehoods, so I consider it an efficient use of my time.
== Why do you feel the need to continue to seek me out wherever I am posting?
Apparently, you’re not listening to me. I never hunted you down. I came across this website by accident while trying to find our original conversation. Get it?
== Frankly, I get tired of being lectured by you.
I ask for clarification and feedback and I always back up my claims with references. That’s not lecturing. Lecturing is more like posting long-winded opinion pieces on blogs and then complaining when people present counter-arguments you can’t refute.
== You have an overinflated sense of your own intelligence and the rightness of your position
I don’t consider myself particularly bright, but intelligence has nothing to do with being on the side of truth. Thsi may come as a shock, but knowledge and intelligence are not synonymous. Truth can usually be determined by a simple process of deduction. You don’t get into any of that because it disrupts your worldview that you have taken for granted to be true. And I understand that most of that is tied to your religious assumption that reasoning is a negative (the “reasoning of men” in LDS scripture is universally negative) and you are therefore immune to reason. Once someone thinks theirs is the position of God, there is hardly room for debate as anything the other person says, no matter how truthful, will be viewed as a satanic deception where truth is used to deceive.
== and after months and months of lengthy debate I just grew weary.
But it was never about getting you to respond. It was always about correcting your misinformation whether you decided to respond or not.
But I don’t recall having anything that could be called a debate with you, beyond the first couple of discussions that never saw a round two - mainly because you bailed out, refused to engage the refuting evidence and said we would have to agree to disagree.
== So let me make it perfectly clear one last time. I have no interest in continued political or philosophical debate with you. I do not fund it enlightening, uplifting or edifying.
Your frustration with accurate information is not my problem. You should know that if you want to throw yourself into the public arena as an authority on various issues, you have to expect to be challenged by people who disagree with you. If you can’t handle the challenge of defending your assertions, then that has no effect on my objective, which is to offer perspective and perhaps innoculate readers from being persuaded by zealous pundits. If you don’t want to defend your assertions then fine. Just stop complaining about people disagreeing because it makes you look silly. Why are you so worried about what is written in the comments section at all? Just publish your opinion and move on to the next piece you have in mind. Let people disagree without being maligned for doing so.
== There are many, many more people out there blogging that you can sink your teeth into. Please go find someone else to stalk.
Calling me a stalker isn’t going to compensate for your inability to deal with the many refuting arguments. Though I suspect it might rally a few Right Wingers to your side, which I suspect was your intention. Because you know damn well I’m not stalking you.
Now back to the topic at hand…. you still never have provided a solution that begins to make sense for the poor level of education in America. You say the answer is more competition in the private sector, but that already exists. Increasing it isn’t something government should be involved in, so who the heck are you really preaching to? Building more private schools isn’t going to solve anything and you haven’t even begun to explain how it could. All it would do is offer more choice for those already attending private schools. If someone wants their kids to receive a private education, that option is readily available to them right now. The problem is, most people cannot afford it.
I only brought up the milk example because it came to mind, and exposes your misunderstanding of the root cause of these problems, same as you misunderstand teh problem with education today. It isn’t government, its the higher powers that shape leglislation. And you still don’t understand that corporations are the problem if they are the ones driving legislatures. I suspect the government will always be your boogeyman no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. I wouldn’t be surprised if your next article attempts to blame government for the deaths of dozens of coal miners, when a private corporation failed to meet safety standards for years.