Beaman!

20 Responses to “Beaman!”

1. Paul Wilson writes
   November 20th, 2009 4:28 pm

   Won’t ever buy a car from him again

2. Matthew Hurtt writes
   November 20th, 2009 4:32 pm

   *puts on my tinfoil hat*

   Collins, as an elected representative of the DCRP, was DISRESPECTFUL to a Republican sitting Member of Congress. Not once, but several times. Publicly. Without cause. There was no reason for Collins to act like a child.

   Who doesn’t understand at this point? As a libertarian myself, I’m really starting to question the cognitive processes of my friends in Nashville.

3. Carter writes
   November 20th, 2009 4:37 pm

   Beaman has NOTHING to do with this…he is not even involved in the DCRP except as an outside advisor every now and again - stop trying to stir up rumors that you have no evidence to support

   It just stupid and you guys are idiots for stirring this stuff up more than it has to be

4. W. E. Messamore writes
   November 20th, 2009 4:45 pm

   Mr. Hurtt:

   I take issue with the words “Without cause.” His cause was Zach Wamp’s vote for a multi-billion dollar transfer of wealth from hard-working, middle-class Americans to wealthy and reckless financial firms, as a reward for their irresponsible behavior.

   It is those firms and their executives who are acting “like a child,” wantonly risking their money and the money of their investors and expecting to live in a world without consequences at the expense of others.

   Mr. Collins was taking a principled stand against that mentality. Is refusing to shake his hand a childish tantrum? I think instead, that it is an acknowledgment of a fact that any true libertarian or conservative would agree to: that Zach Wamp is not Matt Collins’ friend, that anyone who supported TARP is not a friend to any American consumer or taxpayer, that such people are part of the problem, that we are not and will not pretend to be on friendly terms with them, that they are to be judged more, not less harshly if they bear the emblem of an elephant on their lapel.

   Now just what is wrong with the cognitive process I explicated above?

5. Matthew Hurtt writes
   November 20th, 2009 5:10 pm

   You. Still. Don’t. Get. It. Do you? I can’t involve myself in this conversation anymore, because you just don’t get it. I’m going to find a five year old to talk quantum physics with now. Goodnight.

6. Dru writes
   November 20th, 2009 5:16 pm

   We bought our new Mercury Mariner in Madison to avoid Beaman’s Nashville monopoly. He was so unkind to First Lady Andrea Conte when he should have been supportive of her renovation. Why can’t the GOP embrace the big tent philosophy?

7. Carter writes
   November 20th, 2009 5:20 pm

   I think the GOP would prefer a “big tent” philosophy to an “underground bunker” one

8. W. E. Messamore writes
   November 20th, 2009 5:32 pm

   Mr. Hurtt:

   That’s a cop out answer and an evasion. I respectfully and clearly laid out my point.

   If you think it’s childish to refuse to engage with others because you disagree with them, I am curious to know why you are behaving that way yourself.

   My interest in this matter is motivated by my most earnest desire for liberty and justice in this country.

   If you want the same and you think Matt Collins is doing damage to that cause, I would be glad to entertain your thoughts and if I disagreed, to explain why rather than rudely write you off as clueless.

9. Carter writes
   November 20th, 2009 6:21 pm

   W.E. so do you think that a liberal john mccain conservative who might be in the libertarian party should be kicked out of his leadership position if he comes out in favor of bailouts, amnesty, big govt etc and then refuses to shake ron paul’s hand???

   Collins is welcomed in the GOP - just dont break the rules…rules mean something in an organization; i personally agree with collins on many of his viewpoints, but organizations have rules for different positions - follow the rules of that position or just resign that position…not rocket science and its no conspiracy (i actually think he should be given a second chance but i also dont think the world is coming to an end if he is removed from his vp post)

10. Matthew Hurtt writes
    November 20th, 2009 6:27 pm

    I agree with Collins, too! I like Matt. He just shouldn’t've (how do you like that contraction?!) acted like a 5 year old. With great power comes great responsibility. Both were squandered, and now Nashville libertarians are back at square one.

    But, hey, at least you’re ideologically pure! Even if you don’t win. You can pat yourselves on the back for that.

11. W. E. Messamore writes
    November 20th, 2009 7:20 pm

    Carter- If this were about following the organization’s rules, why isn’t the Chairwoman being summoned to a hearing about her removal for explicitly endorsing a third-party candidate (Doug Hoffman) over a Republican?

    It is clear from that inconsistency, that this has nothing to do with enforcing the rules, but with sticking it to the most outspoken leader of a faction within the GOP that another faction doesn’t like (for being too adamant in its insistence on constitutional principles and leadership).

    Hurrt: How is it acting like a child to call Zach Wamp what he is? To insist that Republicans most of all should hold fast to Constitutional principles? To criticize a Republican, not as against a member of another party, but as against other Republicans in a state primary? (What rule does that break, Carter?)

    You are absolutely right that with power comes responsibility. In a position of power comes the responsibility to be a leader and to stand for what’s right. The First Vice Chairman of the DCRP is not abdicating that responsibility, he’s taking that responsibility. He’s living up to it. And he’s being punished for that.

12. Matthew Hurtt writes
    November 20th, 2009 7:30 pm

    Well hey, at least you’re ideologically pure! Even if you don’t win. You can pat yourselves on the back for that.

    At the end of the day, decisions are made by those in power. Either play by the rules, or shut the hell up.

    I’m as libertarian as the next C4L, YAL member… except I understand the rules. When libertarians figure that out, maybe they’ll win.

    Until then, you’ve had a party since the early 1970s… and how many elections have you won? None.

13. Carter writes
    November 20th, 2009 7:54 pm

    Yea she should prob go too…although she did apologize and said she would never do that again…maybe Matt will do that too and then - tadaaa! second chance granted

    but i bet it wont be that easy

14. $ hangs together writes
    November 20th, 2009 9:05 pm

    The rumor is Beaman is actually supporting Haslam b/c they are related by marriage. No harm there.
    Dru - it is ridiculous for dems like you to complain about the alleged lack of a big tent GOP. Pro-life Ds are treated like crap in your party. As are those who don’t support socialized medicine. Lib hate for the blue dogs is everywhere so quit w/ the hypocrisy.
    In addition, it’s no wonder Ds like yourself want a big tent GOP: we lose elections when we go moderate. Reagan and W won running as conservatives. Ford and McCain got beat running as big tent idiots.GHW Bush won as a conservative and lost when he broke a promise on taxes. Dole lost b/c he couldn’t get to the right of Clinton based on his senatorial record (and he weirdly spoke in the 3rd person).
    In conclusion, Rs who take political advice from Ds are morons (and vice versa), Dru’s crocodile tears not withstanding.

15. W. E. Messamore writes
    November 20th, 2009 9:14 pm

    Hurrt: What rule did Matt break?

    Carter: What would Matt apologize for? He’s never supported a third party candidate at the expense of a Republican like the chairwoman has.

16. Donna Locke writes
    November 20th, 2009 10:53 pm

    To thine own self be true.

17. Matthew Hurtt writes
    November 21st, 2009 12:47 am

    Let’s make it REAL simple for you people who can’t draw the same conclusions that everyone else is drawing. Say you’re Vice Chariman of the NAACP, and then you start saying derogatory things about black people. Are you going to keep your position? No. No, you’re not.

    Is it clear now? Do you get it? This’ll be the last time I address this issue.

18. please.... writes
    November 21st, 2009 2:47 am

    Hurtt, No use in replying to these people. It’s sad to say that in your limited life span you have a better understanding of how to deal with people and act like a normal human being than people who are 40. People like Collins and other crazy Ron Paul people are the reason that those views will never become mainstream. Not because they are wrong, but because even people that agree with them can’t stand to be around them.

    For everyone else, please quit trying to implicate Lee Beaman, or Devaney, or Steven Albrooks, or whoever else your conspiracy driven mind makes you want to think is behind this. The ouster of Matt has been talked about for a very long time. There were plots against him before he was even elected, not because of his views, but because of how he and those in support of him act. Lee Beaman could give two shits about Matt Collins, he’s too busy being a true capitalist and really living the American dream.

    If you want your views to win, and for America to succeed, then grow the fuck up and quit acting like you’re the next Tom Paine. But hey, even if you never win an election, at least you can feel like you’re a badass because you “took a stand” on an internet sight.

    If you really want to know who is behind it, look at the Nashville branch of the Fed

19. JohnnyC writes
    November 21st, 2009 2:56 am

    Hurtt’s analogy isn’t quite it. As an elected officer, Matt was part of inviting Wamp to an event. At that event, he not only disagreed with Wamp, but was rude in not extending a handshake. He then uses his web presence and “stature” in the media to tell people he was rude to Wamp

    So the apt analogy is: someone invites you over, they refuse to shake your hand, then they publicly blog or facebook that they invited you over and refused to shake your hand and claim that act makes them principled. That’s what he did; unless he’s seeking to replace Ashton Kutcher on Punkt, it was immature.

20. MattCollins writes
    November 27th, 2009 1:09 am

    I fail to see how refusing to shake the hand of a thief such as bailout supporting Rep “ZigZag Zach” Wamp’s hand is “disrespectful”. In fact it was one of the more polite things I could do to show him I disapproved of his acting like a liberal Democrat. He deserves a tar-and-feathering followed by a sentence of restitution for violating the Constitution and spending us into oblivion. The majority of likely Republican voters agree with me and disapprove of the actions of the 14 members of the DCRP Executive Committee. If you don’t understand that then you haven’t been paying attention lately.