What is the point of the tea party?

[Centexfarmer]

What's unfortunate is that you see BAD in everything having to do with the Tea Party, conservatives and Republicans. Will you ever admit that Democrats (and left-leaning groups) also have their own set of problems?

Whenever someone challenges your assumptions and statements you return to your talking points and attacking those you don't agree with. Are you willing to look beyond your own biases? Or, will you continue to attack those you don't agree with, including other JUB members?

palemale stated some facts, and backed it up with a source.

Where's the attacking coming from?

 

[JB3]

palemale stated some facts, and backed it up with a source.

Where's the attacking coming from?

Maybe you didn't read all the way through Palemale's post...

If you think the people backing the tea party movement were going to endorse any progressive legislation, you are delusional.

 

[JB3]

There's a problem with your analysis, Nick. It has no basis in reality. The Tea Party protests began in February 2009, less than a month after Obama was inaugurated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

The health care reform legislation got progressively worse as conservative Democrats, fearful of the increasing tea party protests, began to oppose the Public Option more vigorously and in great numbers as the tea party movement's opposition became more vociferous. The tea party was largely funded and organized by Dick Armey's group. Do you really think Dick Armey was going to be on our side? What exactly do you consider "our side" and what do you think "our side" supports that would also have garnered the support of the people supporting the tea party movement?

The fact is that the tea party supporters are reactionary. They oppose Health Care Reform in all of its guises, whether it was single-payer, public option, expanded medicare and medicaid. Those are the facts. The tea party movement opposed Obama before he pushed through any legislation that added a dime to the national debt. That is a fact.

If you think the people backing the tea party movement were going to endorse any progressive legislation, you are delusional.

Nick used ObamaCare as just one example, not as THE example.

Do yourself a favor and actually read your own link. The February 10th protest was in response to TARP, and the Obama Admin's decision to continue to spend it. The February 16th protest was one of the first directed at the NEW actions taken by the Obama admin, namely the stimulus package.

Maybe before you criticize Nick, you should read both what he actually wrote, and the links you're using to attempt to discredit him.

 

[Joshua_me]

Hmmm. Weird. In post 29 of this same thread you said, "^That's^ *exactly* what it is..... " that it was about a black man becoming President.

I don't see how one statement contradicts the other...

Honestly Nick, a liberal could tell you the sky is blue and you'd tell them they are not looking at it correctly, it's not daytime everywhere and they obviously have an unnatural predisposition toward primary colors.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Maybe you didn't read all the way through Palemale's post...

Maybe you missed mine, post #53, where I linked to a CBS News Poll of Tea Party Activists.

Where:

But the most active Tea Partiers hold especially favorable views of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and 50 percent think Sarah Palin has the ability to be an effective president. Among Tea Partiers in general, just 40 percent think she has that ability.

From Glenn Beck: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kRgf45ZwI[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ILGIMKVcWU&feature=related[/ame]

So likely that there's anything "progressive" about Tea Partiers?

Not likely.

 

[NickCole]

I don't see how one statement contradicts the other...

Honestly Nick, a liberal could tell you the sky is blue and you'd tell them they are not looking at it correctly, it's not daytime everywhere and they obviously have an unnatural predisposition toward primary colors.

The first post, which you said is "exactly what it is," said this (my emphasis):

It's about "taxes and socialism and the government taking away our freedoms."

Which they only suddenly cared about 2 weeks after a black man became president.

and the second post (post #38 for those who want to read the entire post) said:

I'm sorry to be so negative about this, but change will never come to our modern society from within, the Tea Party is a perfect example of that. Back in 07 they started as a loose coalition of Libertarians enraged over government spending of all kind.

Either "they only suddenly cared about [it] 2 weeks after a black man became president," which would have been January 2009 or they started "back on 07."

The first is clearly saying the Tea Partiers are racists and this is all about our President being black, and the second clearly says it's about government spending and began long before we had a black president.

The statements are totally contradictory and it's interesting you chose to agree with both.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

Either "they only suddenly cared about [it] 2 weeks after a black man became president," which would have been January 2008 or they started "back on 07."

The first is clearly saying the Tea Partiers are racists and this is all about our President being black, and the second clearly says it's about government spending and began long before we had a black president.

The statements are totally contradictory and it's interesting you chose to agree with both.

I would like to point out that it was in January of 09 that anybody heard of the Tea Party, because that was when Fox News and the rest of the GOP decided to stage a hostile takeover of the movement.

Establishment Republicans are as terrified of Libertarians as they are Liberals, probably more so because Libertarians actually practice what they preach. Do you honestly think it was a coincidence we never saw jack shit of the Tea Party during 07-08?

 

[NickCole]

Yeah, you're right Nick.

And what are any of them offering as an alternative?

It's becoming clear to me that we're now living under a class/caste system of Government.

Except instead of a single "King" we have Corporations appointing our "Nobles" through a single two party system.

The Democrats and the Republicans get to choose among their party faithful who'll get to "join the nobility" by funneling campaign contributions toward their elections, so that they won't have to live under the same laws, rules and regulations, and healthcare that us serbs have to abide by.

While those same corporations have bought and paid for our "media," the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speach Media, that use to be the defacto fourth branch of our Government; the Fourth Pillar.

Now they're nothing more than court jesters, the mouth pieces that provide the electorate with the distracting "circuses and bread" which have always been the hallmark, and the precursor to the fall of every great Republic since the Fall of Rome.

We're not even United as to what a "True American" is anymore.

What is the point of the tea party?

To illustrate, even within its very existence and makeup, a "house divided."

Which is exactly where the powers that be want us.

So long as we're divided we'll never completely be united in defeating our own destruction.

What's the phrase?

I have tried to explain this over the past few years.

When we have leaders like Bush and Obama being elected and defended by large segments of the population, the result is going to be just what we're seeing with corporate protection rather than regulation, and soaring profits, while circumstances for the middle class deterioriates.

While they're all (Reagans, Bushes, Clintons, Obamas) in cahoots with Big Money, they are not all the same. Look at the economy and the quality of life for average Americans under each administration. Clinton's is the only one where those living on the lower end actually did better, actually moved up. That's not to say the Clintons aren't buddied up to big business, but at least the Clintons ALSO formulate policies and fight for legislation that helps the middle class and those in poverty prosper if they work for it. My point is, in my perfect world the Clintons would be banished for cavorting with big business but given the circumstances we're stuck with at the moment the Clintons are the good guys for us while the Bushes and Obamas are the bad guys because they don't even temper their big business favoritism with anything to help us.

The American people make these decisions. Obama did not take over Washington in a coup, he was elected by people who would rather be fooled with pretending than chose the better candidate. And it's in that climate that Tea Party movements coalesce. Why? Because they're frustrated and they have no answers and they are sick and tired of being ripped off. The fact that it's their fault as much as anybody's (whom did THEY vote for in the last three elections?) only adds to their frustration.

But the Tea Partiers are not the problem. Bush is the problem, Obama is the problem, and all the people who vote for them and then defend them are the problem. The Tea Partiers are just the ones who get up off the couch and yell out their windows, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." And that may be pointless but it's not racist or ignorant.

 

[NickCole]

I would like to point out that it was in January of 09 that anybody heard of the Tea Party, because that was when Fox News and the rest of the GOP decided to stage a hostile takeover of the movement.

Establishment Republicans are as terrified of Libertarians as they are Liberals, probably more so because Libertarians actually practice what they preach. Do you honestly think it was a coincidence we never saw jack shit of the Tea Party during 07-08?

Absolutely, that's when Fox picked it up and ran with it. And used smarmy propaganda techniques to make it seem more individuals were part of the protests than was the case. That's what Fox is about.

But it is an ObamaNation propaganda that the tea party is about racism and that they're ignorant; the movement is about government spending, or fiscal conservatism. But ObamaNation pulls out "They're RACIST!!!!!" whenever it suits them, which is not only deceitful but amps up race divisions and anger.

Used to be, Fox was the bad guys using smarmy deceitful propaganda; now with ObamaNation it's both sides smarming it out.

 

[opinterph]

The tea party was largely funded and organized by Dick Armey's group.

The tea party movement opposed Obama before he pushed through any legislation that added a dime to the national debt.

I would like to point out that it was in January of 09 … when Fox News and the rest of the GOP decided to stage a hostile takeover of the movement.

Establishment Republicans are as terrified of Libertarians as they are Liberals, probably more so because Libertarians actually practice what they preach.

I think it is reasonable to presume that the sentiment behind what we now call the Tea Party Movement existed before various individuals and organizations stepped in to co-opt, coordinate, and/or capitalize upon it and long before the protest gatherings began in 2009. And I think to a great extent, the recent publicity that has enabled the movement to gain attention and momentum did indeed come from individuals with clear connections to the Republican Party. In that respect, the movement has been guided and thus evolved in a way that makes it function primarily as an anti-Obama campaign. Nonetheless, there may be a more enduring energy behind the movement that is yet to be manifested.

 

[JB3]

Maybe you missed mine, post #53, where I linked to a CBS News Poll of Tea Party Activists.

Where:



From Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kRgf45ZwI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ILGIMKVcWU&feature=related

So likely that there's anything "progressive" about Tea Partiers?

Not likely.

What does that have to do with my post? You asked where the attack was, and I showed you. It had nothing to do with what you posted above. Stop deflecting and address the fact that one member attacked another.

 

[Lostlover]

There's a problem with your analysis, Nick. It has no basis in reality. The Tea Party protests began in February 2009, less than a month after Obama was inaugurated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

The health care reform legislation got progressively worse as conservative Democrats, fearful of the increasing tea party protests, began to oppose the Public Option more vigorously and in great numbers as the tea party movement's opposition became more vociferous. The tea party was largely funded and organized by Dick Armey's group. Do you really think Dick Armey was going to be on our side? What exactly do you consider "our side" and what do you think "our side" supports that would also have garnered the support of the people supporting the tea party movement?

The fact is that the tea party supporters are reactionary. They oppose Health Care Reform in all of its guises, whether it was single-payer, public option, expanded medicare and medicaid. Those are the facts. The tea party movement opposed Obama before he pushed through any legislation that added a dime to the national debt. That is a fact.

If you think the people backing the tea party movement were going to endorse any progressive legislation, you are delusional.

One thing that makes me feel better about the future of our country and is undeniable, is that these geriatric teabaggers' time left to destroy this country is EXTREMELY limited. So, when you look at rallies on TV, cover up half the screen with your hand and that's how many will still be alive in 2012.

Feels better already?

If Republicans were smart, they'd ditch the dead enders and started building a coalition for the future. One that isn't afraid of minorities and denies science. But, I doubt they'll do this.

The Republican party is past its best by date. All they're getting at the polls are the bottom of the barrel people that have no ball in the game.

I feel like Susan Powter when I see these dead enders on TV. I just want to yell, "Stop the insanity!"

 

[Lostlover]

Hmmm. We have Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. We also have a Democrat in the White House. Sounds like your dream has been realized. Yet, we still have corruptions and corporate interests running the show. We also have Obama continuing many of the same Bush programs that Obama denounced prior to his election. Furthermore, Obama has given much control to Pelosi and Reid in setting the agenda. Thus, we saw Obama's healthcare reform and stimulus packages become pork-filled and further feeding greedy corporations. Is this progress? Is this what we were all waiting and hoping for?

Let us not forget that Obama got health care reform through. Democrats have been looking to do something for 60 years on this topic. Even Nixon had a proposal to fix it. Yet, the most vocal opponents are actually recipients of socialized medicine. Obama basically pushed these people to the side (didn't push hard enough if you ask me).

And I hate this pick your poison approach, but imagine the dead enders running things. Denial of science, tax cuts for the rich to "stimulate" the economy, racial profiling (they started that in my state last week against people of Mexican ancestry), escalating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly even striking Iran.

They're just too much as a group. Instead of passing a baton to the next generation, they're policies are like passing a grenade that had its linchpin pulled 3 seconds ago.

They've never seen a war they didn't like. The alternative is pretty damn scary. What's a funny is that a black man is leading the country before they clock out. Their eternal enemy, the black man!

 

[bike10]

White, Anglo, Saxon, Protestants without sheets.

 

[JB3]

One thing that makes me feel better about the future of our country and is undeniable, is that these geriatric teabaggers' time left to destroy this country is EXTREMELY limited. So, when you look at rallies on TV, cover up half the screen with your hand and that's how many will still be alive in 2012.

Feels better already?

If Republicans were smart, they'd ditch the dead enders and started building a coalition for the future. One that isn't afraid of minorities and denies science. But, I doubt they'll do this.

The Republican party is past its best by date. All they're getting at the polls are the bottom of the barrel people that have no ball in the game.

I feel like Susan Powter when I see these dead enders on TV. I just want to yell, "Stop the insanity!"

What ageist bullshit. Don't you get tired of spewing hatred?

 

[Pangelboy]

But I'm trying to [forget that fact]. LOL

Seriously, if our leaders had implemented a radical single-payer system, funded by taxes and the federal government, I'd be so much more pleased. The system that was implemented involves the insurance companies being the real winners. They should call this healthscare. It's just more feeding of corporate America.

By the way, I'm not even hinting that Bush or Republicans are any better, that they have our best interests in mind, etc. Not at all. I'm just increasingly surprised by the road that Obama and Democrats are taking us down concerning bending to corporate interests. I'm also very surprised that Obama is continuing many of the same Bush programs and policies that he campaigned against.

On one hand we have republicans and teabaggers yelling that healthcare reform is going to kill granny and on the other hand we have democrats bending over backwards to please health insurance companies.

Obama is certainly continuing and in some cases furthering many o f Bush's policies, and I can' explain why everyone who for 8 years thought that Bush was Satan (he was damn close) are now congratulating Obama for doing most of the same things.

Maybe the teabaggers (before they were co-opted) were an actual threat to this horrible two-party system that's currently implemented, so the republicans decided to get to them before they could cause any damage to the status quo.

 

[Pangelboy]

So in a way, both parties are really conservative using the dictionary term of: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

If the Tea Party became an actual political party therefore stayed as independent as they can be or got into a coalition[1] with Libertarians (assuming the majority call themselves as Libertarian and they do follow that view), I would have more respect for it.

Otherwise, supporting GOP candidates just because that party is less evil, some candidates that are known to be really anti-personal freedoms, is a sign of weakness.

[1] Usually an alien to Americans term for a few parties cooperating so that they have a majority in their respective legislatures. Closest thing we have are the Independents in the Senate in coalition with Democrats.

Both parties have their own short-term interests (financial, political, etc.) at heart. It just so happens that preserving the status quo (a conservative position) serves both the democrats and republicans. So, yes, they're both conservative, in a sense. Though they (both parties) have no loyalty to conservative positions.

Otherwise, supporting GOP candidates just because that party is less evil, some candidates that are known to be really anti-personal freedoms, is a sign of weakness.

The Tea Party movement probably thought that Fox News, and republican pundits, would be able to maximize the growing Party's ability to spread their message. Maybe, it never occurred to them that their message would be co-opted by republican talking points and partisan tricks in order to facilitate the ongoing "battle" between democrats and republicans.

They thought they could use republicans for exposure and instead the republicans destroyed a possible legitimate threat to the status quo. I remember the teabaggers being a lot more anti-GOP than they've become.

Of course this is all conjecture and conspiracy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well and there's another issue. None of them seem to really be able to agree on what they're on about.

There sure does't seem to be much sense coming out of any of those flash mobs. I just see lots of generic "down with everything" protesting with no real message other than "we don't like that scary dark immigrant in the white house."

As Simon and Garfunkel sang, "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

Yeah, you're right Nick.

And what are any of them offering as an alternative?

It's becoming clear to me that we're now living under a class/caste system of Government.

Except instead of a single "King" we have Corporations appointing our "Nobles" through a single two party system.

The Democrats and the Republicans get to choose among their party faithful who'll get to "join the nobility" by funneling campaign contributions toward their elections, so that they won't have to live under the same laws, rules and regulations, and healthcare that us serbs have to abide by.

While those same corporations have bought and paid for our "media," the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speach Media, that use to be the defacto fourth branch of our Government; the Fourth Pillar.

Now they're nothing more than court jesters, the mouth pieces that provide the electorate with the distracting "circuses and bread" which have always been the hallmark, and the precursor to the fall of every great Republic since the Fall of Rome.

We're not even United as to what a "True American" is anymore.

What is the point of the tea party?

To illustrate, even within its very existence and makeup, a "house divided."

Which is exactly where the powers that be want us.

So long as we're divided we'll never completely be united in defeating our own destruction.

What's the phrase?

 

[Kulindahr]

I would like to point out that it was in January of 09 that anybody heard of the Tea Party, because that was when Fox News and the rest of the GOP decided to stage a hostile takeover of the movement.

Establishment Republicans are as terrified of Libertarians as they are Liberals, probably more so because Libertarians actually practice what they preach. Do you honestly think it was a coincidence we never saw jack shit of the Tea Party during 07-08?

"Hostile takeover" is right.

And when they've milked it for what they wanted, they'll throw it away.

The smartest thing the Tea Party people could do would be in the next election, vote straight Libertarian, and finally get some people who really do believe in smaller government and balanced budgets.

Hmmm. We have Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. We also have a Democrat in the White House. Sounds like your dream has been realized. Yet, we still have corruptions and corporate interests running the show. We also have Obama continuing many of the same Bush programs that Obama denounced prior to his election. Furthermore, Obama has given much control to Pelosi and Reid in setting the agenda. Thus, we saw Obama's healthcare reform and stimulus packages become pork-filled and further feeding greedy corporations. Is this progress? Is this what we were all waiting and hoping for?

Assume for a moment that the Republican Party suddenly ceased to exist. Two things would happen:

1. The Democratic Party would split over something, and business as usual would continue.

2. Something nasty would form from the remnants of the GOP, and business as usual would continue.

Let us not forget that Obama got health care reform through.

He got something through -- whether it's reform is a different matter. I say that turning over the entire U.S. population as required customers under penalty of law isn't reform no matter how you spin it.

They're just too much as a group. Instead of passing a baton to the next generation, they're policies are like passing a grenade that had its linchpin pulled 3 seconds ago.

Ignoring facts, here: the Tea Party folks are pretty much representative of the entire population, age-wise (the statistics were posted earlier). On top of that, by the latest polls they represent 48% of Americans.

They've never seen a war they didn't like. The alternative is pretty damn scary. What's a funny is that a black man is leading the country before they clock out. Their eternal enemy, the black man!

Yeah, the one in five non-white members are really anti-black, I'm sure.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=303742

 

[Kulindahr]

White, Anglo, Saxon, Protestants without sheets.

Can we say "racism"?

Please check the figures previously posted: one in five aren't even white!