What I wish the opponents of the Tea Party might Say

[bbwsrule]

Originally Posted by Christov

And yet the Tea Party draw a line of self interest around it, when theoretically they should be opposed to it.

I appreciate that this is an attempt to argue with the Tea Party position (if in fact there really is one "Tea Party Position", which I doubt in spite of some self-declared leaders of the movement who post Tea Party goals and positions), based on actually discussing the merit or lack thereof of their position, instead of pure demonization. I say this having only read the first several paragraphs of the article (it's late, sorry).

IMO, you can argue that the Tea Party should be opposed to more things, like Medicare, and that they should have been speaking up when Bush was President and got much of the deficit spending rolling. Might be true, but the fact that many didn't notice the severity of the problem until, well, it got much more severe (speaking of deficit spending, which seems to be the main Tea Party complaint) should not negate their right to speak up now.

[bbwsrule]

Originally Posted by Christov

Also, saying there is nobody at the top of the Tea Party is outright ridiculous when you've got talking heads like Glenn Beck herding them all around with buzzwords and theatricals, not to mention political figures like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle using these groups of people in order to gain votes and favour in the public eye.

Certainly the Tea Party "leadership" has endorsed certain Candidates (Republicans; it is no secret that most Tea Party members lean conservative at least on MONETARY issues) and their success testifies to the effectiveness of the movement if nothing else.

Obviously, conservatives such as Sarah Palin make the case that most Tea Party members seem to favor. Glenn Beck hasn't mentioned the Tea Party that much except to discuss mainstream media reaction. He has mainly focused on the current administration, their agenda and ideology, and the history of the progressive movement, as well as defense of the founding fathers and the constitution. He also speaks some about moral values and god.

Glenn Beck is obviously a very polarizing figure whether he deserves to be or not. He has certainly sounded the warning bells loud and clear about deficit spending and its causes, and he lays plenty of blame on Republicans as well.
If you feel that makes him "herding them around with buzzwords" then so be it.

I have been reading Wikipedia about the Tea Party and other subjects referred to in this thread. One thing that stood out was Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News (don't know what % that means) said "I don't think Fox News should be supporting the Tea Party or any party". Shortly after saying this Sean Hannity cancelled an appearance to speak at a Tea Party rally. So at least from Fox's founder, he favors neutrality with respect to the Tea Party.

[bbwsrule]

Originally Posted by lypeaches

What I find unsettling about the Tea Party....is that you will see signs saying "we're taking our country back", or "I want my country back".

I think that is one of the problems. America has become stuck in the past, and is unwilling to make the changes necessary to move this country forward in this new global economy and global climate. It seems like a good portion of this nation is pouting that America is well on its way to no longer being #1 in the world, yet no one has the balls or the ideas or whatever it takes to actually make some positive changes. I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. And frankly, I don't see any party out there with a solid plan for doing so. Dems come closer to it than Republicans, but not by much.

"Moving forward" is of course a vague term. Obama campaigned on this vague notion of "change you can believe in" and many, including Tea Partiers, don't at all like the changes he has proposed or put in place. "I want my country back" expresses the sentiment that the US was just fine, overall, as it was. Having been all over the world myself -- and this is no disrespect to the many fine people of other countries who I have met -- I kiss the ground every time I come home. The US is uniquely free, prosperous, affordable and many other good things.

Of course the subject of what we could change and what we shouldn't change is a vast subject I won't get into further here. Just making the point that they are saying "NO to all these changes" and I think they have every right to say that.

[bbwsrule]

Originally Posted by Christov

Socialism, along with unconstitutional, has become a buzzword for anything the Tea Party disagree with. It's a vague term engineered by the people at the top in order to spur on some action. The Tea Party can complain about anything they see fit if they put it under generalised umbrella terms, which is the most blatant sign that the Tea Party is itself a manipulation of the public by the elite, it's a readymade army of people to fight something that may damage an industry (healthcare) or to make sure one is maintained (defence, weaponry, etc...).

Unconstitutional is a "buzzword"? The Constitution is very central to what has made America a great place to live, the main reason being the incredible foresight by the drafters about how to limit potential abuse of power by the government. If you want to argue that the Tea Party protests are selective about what Unconstitutional laws they disagree with you probably have a point. However, if they wish to say that they think Government-mandated purchasing of Health Insurance is Unconstitutional ITO ("In Their Opinion"??),
then they have a right to say that. Of course the courts will decide this issue at some point.

I'll deal with "Socialism" in the next post as I was reading the Wikipedia article about it.



[/quote]

[bbwsrule]

Originally Posted by Christov

[/url]


Socialism, along with unconstitutional, has become a buzzword for anything the Tea Party disagree with. It's a vague term engineered by the people at the top in order to spur on some action. The Tea Party can complain about anything they see fit if they put it under generalised umbrella terms, which is the most blatant sign that the Tea Party is itself a manipulation of the public by the elite, it's a readymade army of people to fight something that may damage an industry (healthcare) or to make sure one is maintained (defence, weaponry, etc...).[/url]

The first part of the Wikipedia definition of Socialism is here (I admit it is pretty technical but understandable):

"Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers to directly produce use-values (instead of exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind.[4]
Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.[5] They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.[7]"


It seems pretty clear to me that Socialism very much interferes with the Private Sector. Take a look at countries that call themselves Socialist, like Venezuela.

So, I just can't buy that some people holding signs complaining about Socialist-leaning policies means anything but exactly their personal point of view. Again, to say they are puppets of an elite who would damage an industry (healthcare) and help another (defense) just doesn't hold water.
I'm sure most Tea Partiers don't like wasteful spending in defense contracting either. As to Health Care, they don't buy that this bill will represent a savings or improvement to the current system, an opinion they are entitled to express (and have taken at face value).

[Christov]

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

IMO, you can argue that the Tea Party should be opposed to more things, like Medicare, and that they should have been speaking up when Bush was President and got much of the deficit spending rolling.

And yet they aren't. Face facts, the Tea Party is protecting only what matters to them, and not others. I've seen signs from the rallies that scream about the public option decimating Medicare, when Medicare is a public option. It's just ignorance and malice from the Tea Party, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

Certainly the Tea Party "leadership" has endorsed certain Candidates (Republicans; it is no secret that most Tea Party members lean conservative at least on MONETARY issues) and their success testifies to the effectiveness of the movement if nothing else.

My point exactly. Its open manipulation and nothing more. All the people involved with the Tea Party movement and being used for political gain, even if they don't know it. Ironically, they're protesting about the worst excesses or vices of politicians and Government, and yet they're playing party to just that.

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

Glenn Beck hasn't mentioned the Tea Party that much except to discuss mainstream media reaction.

Glenn Beck is a proponent supporter of the Tea Party. He's talked about them, mentioned he has either gone to or wishes to go the rallies, I mean, the first three results for 'Glenn Beck tea party' on Google is his own website.

His 9/12 project is simply an extension of the bullshit the Tea Party is built on, some false sense of what is right and wrong in America and what the Constitution is built upon. He's playing himself up as a Libertarian when he's simply another Conservative talking head; the man is an insult to real Libertarians in my opinion. Just a talk radio punk too big for his boots.

Oh, and to hit home how dangerous and full of crap Beck is, look at his alarmist rallying against the census which got a woman killed.

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

One thing that stood out was Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News (don't know what % that means) said "I don't think Fox News should be supporting the Tea Party or any party". Shortly after saying this Sean Hannity cancelled an appearance to speak at a Tea Party rally. So at least from Fox's founder, he favors neutrality with respect to the Tea Party.

He's playing it safe for now (for the obvious reasons), but it's been obvious for years that Murdoch has been pushing a Conservative/Corporatist agenda for years. Want an example? David Cameron, the current UK Prime Minister, had several meetings with Murdoch, and during the General Election every Murdoch owned newspaper came out in support of Cameron (ironically, one even compared him to Obama). In return for this favour, Cameron is to downsize the media watchdog and regulatory body Ofcom, and in doing so Murdoch can create openly biased news and media without being subject to criticism or any legal complain (as he has been able to in the US). This also means he can take hostile control of more media outlets without intervention of a public body, as he is doing so with BSkyB.

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

So, I just can't buy that some people holding signs complaining about Socialist-leaning policies means anything but exactly their personal point of view. Again, to say they are puppets of an elite who would damage an industry (healthcare) and help another (defense) just doesn't hold water.

Uh, no. The healthcare industry pumped millions into lobbyists such as Jane Norton in order to protect their industry from a public option. Norton is now a tea bagger. Doesn't take long to connect the dots that certain factors of the Tea Party are just lobbying without knowing it because of the 'call to action' regarding rubbish like the faux 'death panels'.

And you can be sure as shit in believing that the Tea Partiers will come out against any drop in defence spending too, another glaring act of hypocrisy within the group.

[bbwsrule]

Christov, I have enjoyed our little debate. It is clear that nothing I say on this subject will convince you of anything but that is fine, you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish.

In spite of the obvious fact that any political movement will indeed have opportunists in it, and I'm sure there are some who seek to exploit the Tea Party movement, it puzzles me to no end that so many are willing to categorically emasculate ordinary citizens by finding reasons to say either that they are all a bunch of ___ (crackpots, racists, elitists, etc) and therefore nothing they say matters, or that they are a bunch of puppets who couldn't possibly understand the issues and so their opinions don't matter in that case either.

I did look at your links about the woman who, you imply, was killed because she followed Glenn Beck's advice to not answer the census. Glenn Beck was nowhere mentioned in this article. She was killed because she raised a firearm at police. Who cares what she claims her reason was? No excuse.
Not that I am saying they should have shot to kill; I wasn't there.

I'm not at all surprised that Media Matters would paint the story as being Glenn Beck's fault since the sole purpose of M.M. is discredit conservative media sources, regardless of whether there is any truth in their allegations. That's how the "god" of the Left, Saul Alinsky, said to do it -- "the ends justifies the means". I'm quite sure that, speaking of puppets, that many are being led by the strings by various George Soros-funded organizations such as M.M. Needless to say I am NOT claiming that those on the Left have no right to have THEIR opinions heard and be taken seriously!

I also listened the the Glenn Beck clip and to me there is nothing "hysterical" about it. He was concerned about the large fines, some of the questions, and that a question NOT asked was whether the respondent was a US Citizen. He is expressing his reservations about the Census form. Again, you can disagree but I see no reason why he shouldn't be entitled to his opinion. The most intrusive question, I thought, was about whether you owned your place of residence and whether you owned it free and clear. I don't see this as an appropriate question for the census but I answered it anyway.

In any event, Christov, we apparently can agree on one thing: we love BBW's. Go enjoy one! Peace.

[Blackjack]

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

That's how the "god" of the Left, Saul Alinsky, said to do it -- "the ends justifies the means".

That's a strange spelling of Niccolò Machiavelli.

[frankman]

Originally Posted by Blackjack

That's a strange spelling of Niccolò Machiavelli.

You're my hero. When I grow up, I want to have a black and white avatar and crack wise too, so I can be this awesome.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Blackjack

That's a strange spelling of Niccolò Machiavelli.

I don't think Machiavelli's classical liberalism is the same as the progressivism we have today.

[Blackjack]

Originally Posted by mountaindew

I don't think Machiavelli's classical liberalism is the same as the progressivism we have today.

I'm not even certain where he'd fall on the fucked-up spectrum of today's politics; but that doesn't mean that the quote wasn't incorrectly attributed.

[mountaindew]

Originally Posted by Blackjack

I'm not even certain where he'd fall on the fucked-up spectrum of today's politics; but that doesn't mean that the quote wasn't incorrectly attributed.

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. It's too easy to hijack the intent of dated philosophy to justify today's agenda.

[Vespertine]

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

In my previous response I agreed that calling Iraq War objectors unpatriotic is wrong to the extent it did happen.

It happened, and it affected me deeply. "You're either with us or with the terrorists" seems to pretty much write off anyone against the 'war on terrorism' as enemies of the state.

You state "from how their celebrity planners deliberately mishandled things imo, have to forever deal with defending themselves against charges of racism". Since I honestly don't know specifically what you are referring to that would legitimately allow a real claim of "bunch of racists", is there anything, that can be substantiated, that you can supply to clarify this for me? Thanks if so.

If you've been watching these people and you haven't picked up on it, then I'm not sure I can help with any more sound bytes. These boards and others like it are filled with arguments over perception here, I'm not going to start another. If you go around thinking race doesn't matter for you and therefore anyone else, you'll dis/miss it.

I would hope that racist signs would be eliminated but as I said I haven't seen any.

You haven't seen any, but you haven't been to any demonstrations either iirc. We're in the same boat on the second part, relying on second hand reports. However, I consume ALL media with skepticism, so I have seen the signs, and I have seen and read enough to believe they exist. You too can google it up and dare to cross party lines for information.

Your mistake here imo is to believe any media source is reputable or cares about you. The media shows what it wants their audience to see and flatters their sensibilities. Between the right media crowing about homogeneously non-racist people at the events, and left media's bottomless outrage at the relatively few signs, I think the truth is somewhere in between and includes zero ego stroking for anyone being 'right' about the other group.

When you get down to it, it just doesn't make sense. I'm a white guy and I don't care at all about the President's race. I care only about the Policies that the Government as a whole is pursuing. The vast majority of signs at Tea Party rallies seem to me to be expressing the same opinions.

For the grassroots, one bad apple does spoil the whole barrel.

What people don't seem to get is that grassroots activism is routinely demonized in the media and hijacked/deconstructed by politicians. This is not happening because the tea party is speshul except that it is a rare conservative group. It is business as usual how they're being marginalized, which imo is more important than even the issues they're discussing.

Does it really matter the race, or political party, of the President if he is bankrupting the country? Most people care about how to make their own lives better, and the country as a whole (which of course means there will be disagreement).

It's truly time to get past the "Racist" claim.

The claim of 'race doesn't matter' is a great ideal but until we see that actually reflected in the world with respect to seats of power, it can't really be claimed. If we accept that all men (and women ;P) are created equal, then it stands to be outrageous the seats of power in the nation do not reflect that. That is why Obama is not just another president. He represents the hopes and dreams of all people not born into privilege, unlike the majority of our other politicians. It makes it hard for the left to critique him either if for sentimental reasons, but it is starting at last. I hope the country unifies, but it can't without humility from both 'sides'.

KKK members are clearly racists, but so are some of the members of the New Black Panthers we have been treated to recently: "I HATE White People! We need to kill Cracker Babies!". This is a shortened version of what was actually said. Hating white people is racism every bit as much as the other way around. That said, I certainly am not claiming, by and large, that those who like Obama's agenda are racists. Similarly it isn't fair to make that same claim against Tea Partiers and others who object to his agenda.

No, I don't think it is fair to write off any large group based on some individuals, and prejudging anyone on physical appearance is abhorrent obviously.

[calauria]

Originally Posted by lypeaches

What I find unsettling about the Tea Party....is that you will see signs saying "we're taking our country back", or "I want my country back".

I think that is one of the problems. America has become stuck in the past, and is unwilling to make the changes necessary to move this country forward in this new global economy and global climate. It seems like a good portion of this nation is pouting that America is well on its way to no longer being #1 in the world, yet no one has the balls or the ideas or whatever it takes to actually make some positive changes. I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. And frankly, I don't see any party out there with a solid plan for doing so. Dems come closer to it than Republicans, but not by much.

You are so right. I had to rep you!!

[lypeaches]

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

"Moving forward" is of course a vague term. Obama campaigned on this vague notion of "change you can believe in" and many, including Tea Partiers, don't at all like the changes he has proposed or put in place. "I want my country back" expresses the sentiment that the US was just fine, overall, as it was. Having been all over the world myself -- and this is no disrespect to the many fine people of other countries who I have met -- I kiss the ground every time I come home. The US is uniquely free, prosperous, affordable and many other good things.

Of course the subject of what we could change and what we shouldn't change is a vast subject I won't get into further here. Just making the point that they are saying "NO to all these changes" and I think they have every right to say that.

But I find it difficult to believe that a cognitive person would think the US was "doing just fine overall". Jobs steadily being shipped overseas, corporations taking over our government and small businesses, and America owing more and more of its ass to China, for example....how exactly is that "doing just fine overall"? These problems did not crop up overnight, it's something that's been brewing for a long, long time. Sure, we were living well, but it was at the expense of our future. Just shows you exactly how short sighted some people can be. But hey, as long as they can buy a flat screen TV for $199 or whatever from Target, then America is doing just great.

I've no problem with anyone disagreeing with a policy. But saying that it was "just fine the way it was before" is burying ones head in the sand.

[frankman]

Originally Posted by lypeaches

But I find it difficult to believe that a cognitive person would think the US was "doing just fine overall". Jobs steadily being shipped overseas, corporations taking over our government and small businesses, and America owing more and more of its ass to China, for example....how exactly is that "doing just fine overall"? These problems did not crop up overnight, it's something that's been brewing for a long, long time. Sure, we were living well, but it was at the expense of our future. Just shows you exactly how short sighted some people can be. But hey, as long as they can buy a flat screen TV for $199 or whatever from Target, then America is doing just great.

I've no problem with anyone disagreeing with a policy. But saying that it was "just fine the way it was before" is burying ones head in the sand.

You do realize you've just put down (and rightfully so) about 55% of your fellow countrymen, right?

[lypeaches]

Well, call me Pollyanna, but I'm hoping that the actual numbers of those who think things were "just fine", are in reality small.

[frankman]

Originally Posted by lypeaches

Well, call me Pollyanna, but I'm hoping that the actual numbers of those who think things were "just fine", are in reality small.

You'd be surprized.

[JoyJoy]

Originally Posted by bbwsrule

Perhaps there are some pictures of Tea Party rallies that have hateful signs but I have never seen it. Can anyone supply a real picture of this? Of course just one sign doesn't mean a lot when many people are involved.

I did see one that said "Obamadinijad" which I admit is pretty strong. Almost all of the signs that I have seen relate to overspending by the government
(and from what I can tell they don't like it when Republicans overspend either) and what they perceive as overreach by government. In fact they want Republicans to stick to fiscal conservative values, hence their opposition to a number of incumbent Repubs, right or not.

BTW, I'm not a Tea Party member and have never attended a Rally. It is just that it seems overwhelmingly like ordinary people to me, not extremists.

Does this one work for you?



http://www.radioiowa.com/2010/07/13/...aises-concern/

John White, state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement, says the new billboard crosses a dangerous line. He says it’s going somewhere the Tea Party doesn’t need to go.....He says he’s seen different signs that have compared Obama to Hitler, or pictures of Obama with a Hitler-style mustache drawn on it, and they’ve asked people put the signs away because they’re “distasteful.” He says people are tired of slander and mudslinging and the Tea Party doesn’t need to take part in it. While he doesn’t agree with posting the billboard, White says he agrees that Obama has followed several of the same principles as Hitler.

He says everything Obama has done is “lock-step” with what Hitler did in his day, but the sign goes into an area where the Tea Party doesn’t want to be. The founder of the North Iowa Tea Party group, Bob Johnson of Mason City, declined to comment for this story. The billboard is located at the southern junction of U.S. Highway 65 and State Highway 122.

Here's my problem with the Tea Party. You have guys like this John White, who decry the blatant examples of racism and hate and inflammatory accusations toward the President, yet he goes on to compare him to Hitler ("lock-step", anyone? I'm looking at you, bdm). How exactly is this less distasteful than the billboard? I've encountered this before - tea partiers who get upset because of the "fringe" who are throwing these accusations around, yet they never disagree with what the "fringe" is saying. It seems obvious to me that while they don't want these people making them look bad, they still share their beliefs.

[Dromond]

The only thing Hitler and Obama have in common is that they were both born on planet Earth. Ol' Adolf wouldn't think twice about tossing Obama into the gas chamber for being a dirty mongrel.

Edited to add: When you think about it, the whole thing is darkly ironic.