Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Tea Party Haters
Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 14:45:45 MDT Print View

Perhaps the most well known drug that actually made "a big impact on the health of the general public" was pinicillin, that was developed by university researchers

So if we want new effective drugs, we should put more money into university research, not presume that Pharmaceutical companies are going to do it

Instead, this crazy movement to reduce government (or "gubmint") spending is doing just the opposite

Not that I'm saying Pharmaceutical companies aren't good and shouldn't make a profit

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 17:21:54 MDT Print View

" but it's always fun to spend a day at the range getting instruction from people who can do truly terrifying things with a handgun."

Judging from the few I know personally or have met casually, those guys can be terrifying without a gun. A very intimidating bunch. Even when they smile.

So tell me, did they teach you how to do a colonic resection in the field with a Heckler & Koch Mk 23 Mod 0? ;0)


"I was also on a very tiny FOB- fifty guys total- with a very active local amateur artillerist community, which always adds a little zest to daily living. Despite all of the high explosives falling from the sky, though, we only had a single casualty all summer- not life threatening, albeit resulting in a GREAT scar."

Sounds like a sporting proposition. If it isn't classified, what were you doing way out in the boonies this late in the war? If the Talibs had gotten lucky, it would have been one helluva waste of medical training and experience.

"There may be troops remaining in Afghanistan but if they include medical resources they will certainly be prohibited from doing charity on a scale like that, if at all."

Too bad. It would be a great way to win a lot of hearts and minds, a lot more effective, IMO, that trying to bludgeon them into submission or wear them down in a low grade campaign of attrition. A lot easier on docs like you, too, than what you've mostly been doing for the last 12 years.

"One reason that I did so little on this last deployment is that the medical rules of engagement got a lot more strict in an attempt to force the Afghan government and medical system to develop to be able to care for its own citizens, in anticipation of the day that we would no longer be there in force. There was a not-unjustified perception that the US military had become the defacto trauma care, charity ward, and medical evacuation system for the entire country. So the line guys, as is often the case, had to step in and restrain the medical people from getting carried away. Because we do have a tendency to do that..."

I think it's going to be a long, long time before the Afghan government gets around to giving much of a sh!t about its own people. Given that, it makes me sad that you docs have been restrained by line authority, but that's the way it goes, I guess. It would be different if it lit a fire under the Afghan Govt, but as I said.... Did it make you feel ambivalent?

"I think that the production of cheap and unprofitable but societally beneficial medications like vaccines and antibiotics are where the government can have a bigger role. How exactly, I don't know- subsidies? I'd prefer that to actually having production in the hands of the government. Jeez, I'm just a poor country surgeon, here- I don't have all the answers. But that would certainly be cheaper than totally taking over new drug development- leave that to the corporations."

How about letting govt-university consortiums do the development and farm the production out to pharma at cost plus a decent profit? At least as a fall back plan if pharma wouldn't step up to the plate. Subsidies might also be a way, if you could get them to commit part of their R&D staff to the projects.

"Is it a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies always "strive for the next drug that will make a big impact on the health of the general public"? I'd say that's a Good Thing."

If they were always striving for the next big drug that would make a big impact on the health of the general public, I'd be all for it, especially if they went after the ones that would have the broadest impact. In practice, it seems they instead tend to concentrate on developing drugs that will have a limited impact, say for instance, drugs that extend life a few months, improve the sex lives of over the hill males, or mellow people out. Just my impression. I'd also feel a whole lot better if they spent more on R&D, and a whole lot less on advertising directly to patients. In fact, I think the practice should be outlawed. If they weren't allowed to advertise, and instead put that money into R&D, they could do a lot more of both.

"Profits? Well, that's what corporations are for- IMO we only need just enough reasonable regulation to stop capitalism run amok as in the late 19th century worker and consumer abuses, the Great Depression, the housing bubble, the tragedy of the commons, environmental abuse, etc."

I've got nothing against profits. Unfortunately, in my view, they're the best motivator for innovation we have at this point in human evolution, but recent corporate behavior has proven once again that we have not evolved much beyond the 19th century in the absence of reasonable regulation.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 17:53:32 MDT Print View

"I've got nothing against profits. Unfortunately, in my view, they're the best motivator for innovation we have at this point in human evolution, but recent corporate behavior has proven once again that we have not evolved much beyond the 19th century in the absence of reasonable regulation."

A lot of people are motivated by helping other people

And people that have aquired sufficient wealth often become more motivated to help others - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kennedy,...

But depending on super-wealthy people to save us kind of bothers me, they can go off in weird directions

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 19:44:01 MDT Print View

"And people that have aquired sufficient wealth often become more motivated to help others - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kennedy,..."

The exceptions prove the rule?

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
answers on 10/28/2013 20:56:41 MDT Print View

I have to say, jerry, that the entire rant about lipitor was a bit of a non-sequitur. I'm certainly not going to argue about there being little difference in efficacy among statins. And I have already said that there need to be changes. Heck, I condemned evergreening. So, uh, just who are you arguing against? :)

Are you saying that a socioeconomic system based upon altruism would work better? As a practical matter, that'd be a hoot. (Wasn't that sort of the idea behind communism? And that worked so incredibly well...) Yes, many people are motivated by helping others, but everyone can't ONLY be motivated by helping others. You have to take care of yourself as well, and that includes economically. Also, being motivated by helping others is not mutually exclusive with being motivated by profit. Your wealthy philanthropist list sort of shows that. I do get your point but we still need an efficient economic system, and altruism isn't an economic system.

Tom, wow, lotta questions.

No Mk23 Mod0- almost without exception our guys had Glocks, and very rational-sounding reasons for why they prefer them. Shooting the silenced ones is fun. Poor instrument choice for colectomies, though. But we medical weenies were still stuck with our Berettas, anyway

What was I doing, why, and where? Nothing classified- CJSOTF just decided that they wanted a more robust surgical capability under their direct control, because medical coverage is getting dicey as units pull out and medevac helicopters get thin on the ground. Since what CJSOTF wants CJSOTF gets, they were given the Forward Surgical Team that I was assigned to. (They had a couple of administrative projects for us, too, but nothing interesting. We're medical weenies.) We were covering southwest Ghazni. One nice thing is that since the special people like to make their own rules and are all into the hearts and minds thing as you mentioned we at least got to do a *little* charity work.

Ambivalent? No, I wouldn't say that. Less fun, yes, but I'm enough of a Soldier to to suck it up and drive on. I also understand at least what they were trying to do. They were trying not to just disappear on the Afghans one day and leave them with no functional medical system at all. Task Force MED spent a lot of money and effort training up the Afghan system. They had advisory programs in a lot of Afghan hospitals, including Kabul National Military Hospital, and development teams out teaching midwifery to village women and such. The French have a charity hospital at Kabul Airport that is actually still doing charity cases- I think it's run by an NGO, but they obviously must interact with the military forces in the country very extensively. The Egyptians also still do charity cases, the last I checked, but they were getting close to leaving. Also the Koreans.

And don't get me wrong- the American military is still doing charity cases, too- there just has to be NO other alternative in the country and an available bed, and we're trying like hell to make the Afghan government use their own ambulance system and helicopters instead of burning aviation fuel and risking our aircrews.

I suspect that having all new drug development performed by a government/university partnership wouldn't be as vigorous. Development would slow to a crawl because not as much money would be getting poured into it- our government already spends half again as much as it takes in, and new drug development is *expensive*. (Which is actually part of the problem, since the pharmaceutical companies are loathe to just walk away from a new drug that isn't really any big improvement as they spent so damned much to develop it.) But as I said, profit is a great motivator- its one reason that I say that I believe in markets. They get stuff DONE, and generally in the most efficient ways. But I acknowledge that runaway libertarian/objectivist-style capitalism is destructive- again, reasonable regulation. We have to find a way not to destroy our own ecosystem and drive ourselves extinct. Because that is clearly where we are headed.

I can't say that I don't have objections to medical advertising, either. And there is certainly a subpopulation of patients who don't believe you when you say that a generic is just as good. So sort of like jerry, I'm not sure who you are arguing with. :)

Edited by acrosome on 10/28/2013 21:08:53 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: answers on 10/28/2013 21:54:12 MDT Print View

I'm not really arguing with you Dean, just brainstorming how things could be better

The profit making of Pharmaceuticals mostly leads them in directions that don't improve our health. Lipitor is just an example - the best selling drug on the list and you could work your way down the list. And you could also look at diagnostic machines and everything else.

The government pays companies to build roads and make military weapons, maybe that would be a better model for pharmaceutical companies. And they might prefer a steady income even if they didn't make huge amounts when they "hit a homerun" with a drug like Lipitor.

Most of the ground breaking work is done by universities. They are more motivated by altruism. And they get paid good too. Just not "Bill Gates" rich. But government funding of university research is being reduced.

It's super expensive to bring a drug to market with large double blind studies. But these are not statistically valid. If a study starts showing bad results they stop it and start a new study, until they get one that works. It's super expensive to produce new drugs because of these studies, but as in the example of Lipitor, this super expensive process created a drug that was no more effective than other already available statins.

If a pharmaceutical company developed some new antibiotics, and bacteria evolved resistant to current antibiotics that would then cause a large outbreak that killed thousands or millions of people, and that new antibiotic would prevent it - that would be a blockbuster - but all the pharmaceutical companies have stopped developing antibiotics because there's no money in it like there is developing new blockbuster drugs like Lipitor.

There is something wrong with our system.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 21:56:48 MDT Print View

"And people that have aquired sufficient wealth often become more motivated to help others - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kennedy,...

The exceptions prove the rule?"

Like I said - depending on super-wealthy people to save us kind of bothers me, they can go off in weird directions

But they do a lot of good things based on altruism. Everything is not just about making money.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Tea Party Haters on 10/28/2013 22:51:10 MDT Print View

Not to quibble Dean but the "You can keep your plan" stuff is current, not limited to 2009.

In fact, this statement is up on the White House website right now:


"Q: Will my coverage at work change?

A: No. If you like the health plan you have, you will be able to keep it."


Not much ambiguity there.

Jeremy and Angela
(requiem) - F - M

Locale: Northern California
Re: answers on 10/29/2013 00:12:57 MDT Print View

And there is certainly a subpopulation of patients who don't believe you when you say that a generic is just as good.

So Dean, have you heard about this particular generic manufacturer:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/

(It's not really about Lipitor, that's just the hook to draw in readers. But, it is pretty epic.)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: answers on 10/29/2013 08:17:35 MDT Print View

You must be talking about the Indian drug manufacturer that made bad Lipitor.

Seems like we should have better regulations on drug manufacturers. Seems like consumer goods regulations and inspections have become less effective in recent years, like they have been corrupted by the people being inspected.

Like chicken - why don't they recall that Foster Farm salmonella tainted chicken?

Jeremy and Angela
(requiem) - F - M

Locale: Northern California
Re: Re: Re: answers on 10/29/2013 12:26:12 MDT Print View

Yes, the article is about that company, but it's so much more awesome than that side story. Setting aside the question of regulatory capture, this is more about an enterprise (6th largest generic drug maker) that actively worked to deceive regulators. Think forged documents, faked tests, adulterated products, etc as a standard business practice.

As the article mentions, an inspection of a US site could be unannounced and last for weeks, whereas with the foreign sites there's often plenty of warning should a company want to "tidy up a bit". My take from the article isn't that the regulations are insufficient, more that the ability to effectively police off-shore manufacturers may be lacking.

Strangely enough, I'm not as worried about the Foster Farms bit. I think Foster Farms could have handled it better from a PR perspective, but mentally it's still in the #firstworldproblems box. Probably the USDA (the relevant agency in this case) will obtain the ability to recall for salmonella in the future. (Some backstory on that here.)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: answers on 10/29/2013 13:24:52 MDT Print View

I try to buy U.S. stuff. or Canada or other first world countries that we have approx. balanced trade with. Both for safety and economic reasons.

I think the way we grow chickens and beef produces unhealthful meat. They should be closer to natural conditions, but then it's more expensive and maybe there isn't enough nature to produce the amount of meat we eat. Salmonella in chicken is only part of it.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
slavery okay, if thats what they want on 10/29/2013 18:30:08 MDT Print View

"On Monday, a YouTube video surfaced of a Republican gathering last August where freshman Assemblyman Jim Wheeler told members of the Storey County GOP he would vote to allow slavery if that was the desire of his rural constituents. "If that's what they wanted, I'd have to hold my nose ... they'd probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah," Wheeler said."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-nevada-lawmaker-slavery-vote-20131029,0,2751119.story#axzz2jA1BKzU1

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: answers on 10/29/2013 20:58:50 MDT Print View

"So sort of like jerry, I'm not sure who you are arguing with. :)"

Not arguing at all. This has been, far more than our usual dialogues, a low key exchange of views/info, and I was just putting an idea out there to solicit your perspective. And others'. Thanks much for all your info on your Afghan experience. I found it to be enlightening, compassionate, and far more balanced than I might have expected, given your experience trying to put our folks back together again, which could well have left you with a deep seated hatred of all things Afghan. And no, I'm not going all wobbly on you, just genuinely appreciative of what you have done and how well you have weathered the whole thing.

Ditto your perspective on the medical situation here at home. :)

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/06/2013 15:53:00 MST Print View

Libertarians vs the Tea Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU

Edited by justin_baker on 11/07/2013 10:57:56 MST.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/07/2013 09:59:46 MST Print View

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU

OK, I looked at part of this, the first four topics (all I had time for), none of which are tea party concerns, at least the group that I am familiar with.

Again, I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around about the "tea party" and for most, it's just easier to repeat what has been said, than to find out for yourself. What goes on in the group in the next town, I dunno. I try not to pretend I know, even though I've got a pretty good idea.

Edited by BFThorp on 11/07/2013 16:34:58 MST.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Fred you are right on 11/07/2013 10:28:31 MST Print View

This http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ does not match

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGurCU

However, pretty much every tea-party person I know also expounds on the beliefs parodied in the youtube video. Not only are liberals confused as to what the tea party movement stands for, but a lot of conservatives seem to be also.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/07/2013 10:38:25 MST Print View

Are there tea party "groups" from town to town? Do they have meetings, maybe with coffee or tea provided?

Or is it sort of an undefined label that has no specific meaning common to all people?

Certainly, the national politicians that call themselves "tea party" are different than local citizens. And the same super wealthy people that have corrupted our government have also corrupted any national tea party organization.

What's interesting is the national tea party politicians seem to have "gone off the reservation". The super wealthy people that have taken over the tea party have lost control. For example, I don't think they wanted to shut down the government.

Will the tea party politicans running for national office continue to get so much political contributions? Maybe the super wealthy will have second thoughts.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
The American Iron Curtain on 11/07/2013 16:11:37 MST Print View

The American Iron Curtain

Posted by: TLB Staff
Published November 7, 2013

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/11/07/the-american-iron-curtain/



In March 1946, Winston Churchill told a Missouri audience, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia.”

Today a new iron curtain is descending. It encloses the small Missouri town where Churchill gave his speech and all the great capitals of a great nation. Behind the iron curtain lie New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and countless others.

It covers a million streets and hundreds of millions of people. Its shadow passes over stores and factories, homes and schools. It is not a physical wall. There are, as of yet, no border guards with rifles waiting to shoot those wanting to leave, there are no watchtowers or leashed dogs keeping an eye on the inner frontier.

It is a wall of words. A wall of laws, regulations and mandates. The 2012 Federal Register had 78,961 pages. There are 11 million words of ObamaCare regulations alone. With so many regulations, everyone violates a few of them without even knowing it. Assemble all the millions of them together and you have a great wall that would dwarf anything in China
The American iron curtain is still made out of paper, but in time it will be made out of cement and iron

The American iron curtain is still made out of paper, but in time it will be made out of cement and iron. Tyrannies begin with paper, but end with metal. The state begins by imposing bureaucracy on a free people and ends by imposing tyranny on them. When they will not obey the paper, it resorts to steel, iron and lead.

Four decades after Churchill invoked the Iron Curtain, in his Evil Empire speech Reagan named the Soviet enemy as those who “preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth.”

“They are the focus of evil in the modern world,” he said.

Quoting C.S. Lewis, he warned that the greatest evil “is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

That is the struggle now before us.

We do not fight men with nuclear missiles or red armies of freezing conscripts waiting to march through Europe. Instead we fight against an evil empire that has arisen in our cities and its red army of front groups that insinuate their ideas into every institution they take control of.
Conservatives have lost the ability to lay out the stakes in the clear and simple language of a Churchill or a Reagan

Conservatives have lost the ability to lay out the stakes in the clear and simple language of a Churchill or a Reagan, to let the people know that they are not choosing between politicians, but choosing whether they will be able to have the car of their choice, the doctor of their choice, the meal of their choice and the book of their choice.

Choice, the word that once used to define the American experience, has been relegated to a debate over whether mothers have the right to kill their children. That choice is still the focus of a national debate. But the billion other choices that millions of people make have been taken off the table.

The conflict is simple and straightforward. It is the struggle over whether America will be an open system or a closed system.

In an open system, you choose the life you live. In a closed system, your life is mandated for you. An open system believes in the genius of the individual while the closed system believes in the genius of the visionaries of the ideology and the moral purity of the bureaucrats who implement it.

The open system is a door that you can choose to lock or leave open. The closed system is a cell door with wardens and guards who will let you out when they choose to.
In the open system you are in control. In the closed system you are being controlled for your own good, for the greater good

In the open system you are in control. In the closed system you are being controlled for your own good, for the greater good, for the good of the state and the five-year-plan and the policy paper and the sub-paragraph of the regulation of page 50,261 as reinterpreted by a Federal judge in a court ruling that you never even heard of.

In the open system, you are a free man or woman standing at an open door. In the closed system, you are one of countless numbers in a book and a database. A number has been given to you at birth and your life is an interaction with other numbers that rate your behavior and your potential until your death when you are given your final number—the sum total of your property that will be claimed by the state.

Even in an age where the internet has proven the supremacy of open systems, liberals insist on pursuing the iron dream of the 19th century of stewardship and slavery, of a state that runs like a factory with managers to oversee the cradle to grave lives of its dumb and unwilling workers.

The iron dream has failed everywhere. Its ruins dot the Russian landscape. Its corpses fill the tundra from Asia to Europe. Its victims cry out across thousands of miles. The statues of its visionaries fill the scrap heaps of the east and its empty fields and abandoned factories can be found on every continent.

But everywhere there are men who need to believe in the supremacy of the state, in the closed system, the iron dream and the iron curtain, in 78,000 pages of regulations and all their millions and millions of words, in the nudge, the mandate, the law, the bill and the billy club.

These are the dreamers of the iron dream; the professors who tell their students to change the world by enslaving others to their iron dream, the newsreaders and entertainers who vividly paint the joys of living in the iron dream and the horrors of life outside it, the activists who crowd around shouting for the iron dream in the name of the “People” and the politicians of the iron dream whose faith is in the good of the many and the power of the few.

The American iron curtain is not substantively different than the iron curtain anywhere else, its descent is only slower and the men and women lowering it are more familiar.

The politicians are not guttural foreigners with harsh voices, they speak of American values and invoke American history even as they dismantle both, they stand in front of flags and speak of social justice at state fairs.

They claim that the old system is broken, that it’s unfair and inhumane, that progress is inevitable and that the march of progress and the progress of science have revealed that their way is best. The Mohamedans had their revelation from an angel and the politicians have their muse who shows them that a better world is possible when all men are slaves and the right men rule over them.

They speak of the power of the people, but they only mean certain people will have power and other people will have the power to support them. Like a Soviet election, the power of the people will be limited to voting “Yes” or “No” with the negative vote punishable as subversion and treason.

They don’t call for shooting their opponents, though occasionally the liberal thinkers at the think-tanks that come up with the ideas and talking points that are incorporated into their laws and speeches are indelicate enough to broach the subject. That sort of thing usually comes later.

For now they are concentrating on building their paper walls higher and higher. There are more laws than anyone can read, let alone know or follow.

The laws, like the marching Chinese, are effectively infinite. Even if a curious follow were to sit down and try to read through them, going without food or sleep around the clock, it would be a hopeless task because no sooner will he have finished 100 pages,than a fresh delivery of another 200 pages will have already been added.

There is too much law being made to count.

Laws are being passed to find out what’s in them and even reading them is useless because the added regulations define what the law does and judges decide how they should be implemented. Nearly 100 million Americans will have their health plans taken away because of how the regulations were written.

That is the power of the paper wall.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt delivered a speech that began, “The great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not.”

“I believe in the right of the people to rule,” he continued. “I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them.”

A hundred years later, that is still the issue before us. Will we have an open system in which the American people govern themselves or a closed system in which they are governed by bureaucracies and judges, by the activists and mediacrats of the iron dream and their politicians who promise to protect them from their own choices?

We cannot have a hybrid system of both functioning together for very long. Freedom and tyranny do not naturally co-exist. A system does not hang in equilibrium between open and closed. Or as Lincoln put it, “This government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” And it isn’t enduring.

America has been moving back toward the closed system for some time now. The movement is incremental, its bureaucratic chains come wrapped in populist rhetoric, its power plays take the moral high ground for the oppressed, for progress and for efficient government, and its worst abuses are kept out of the headlines.

Each generation has less freedom than the last. Each generation lives under a more powerful system that is relentless in its determination to control and command. And each generation fails to make the connection between its incremental poverty, its incremental loss of freedom and its growing government.

The iron curtain, like the Berlin Wall, is vulnerable. It can be torn down when enough men inspired to be free converge on it and begin destroying it with sledgehammers and even their bare hands. Its greatest strength is that men do not even know that it is there.

When Churchill named the iron curtain, he expressed a reality that people were familiar with, but lacked the words to describe.

The Communists had seized control of Eastern Europe through deception and double-dealing, they had promised freedom and delivered tyranny, and did it with the collaboration of politicians and media abroad who defended their crimes and spoke of them as humanitarians and defenders of equality. And there lay their greatest strength; until they were named for what they were, it was impossible to see the iron curtain and the evil empire that Churchill and Reagan made real.

That is true of the American iron curtain, which goes by a thousand names like liberal, progressive, humanitarian, social justice, equality, opportunity, reform… and 993 others like it. To destroy it, it has to be named.

People do not try to tear down a wall that they do not even know is there. It is only when they see the wall, when they feel its chill in their bones, when they sense its shadow over their lives, when they strive to climb over it and are shot down, when they chant against it and are beaten; will they be ready to tear it down.

Until the men and women of the open system come with a clear message warning of the wall that is being built around a free people, then they will go on losing elections and the cause of freedom will be lost, drowned in iron and paper, put in chains and filed in a trillion crowded databases.

Only when Americans see the wall, when they sense its shadow over Missouri and Florida, over New York and California, from ocean to ocean and border to border, will they be ready to tear it down.

Only then will they be ready to be free.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tea Party Haters on 11/07/2013 16:42:15 MST Print View

>>>>>>>>>>>
Are there tea party "groups" from town to town? Do they have meetings, maybe with coffee or tea provided?

Or is it sort of an undefined label that has no specific meaning common to all people?

Certainly, the national politicians that call themselves "tea party" are different than local citizens. And the same super wealthy people that have corrupted our government have also corrupted any national tea party organization.

What's interesting is the national tea party politicians seem to have "gone off the reservation". The super wealthy people that have taken over the tea party have lost control. For example, I don't think they wanted to shut down the government.

Will the tea party politicans running for national office continue to get so much political contributions? Maybe the super wealthy will have second thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Questions followed by organizational assumptions. Sweet. This pretty much answers the question in my original post.