The Tea Party

[Jill Monroe]

What do you know about them, what do you think of them? Do you find them to be helpfull, hurtfull or just plan useless?

I personally think a) they are a racist party b) more than half of them are idiots who dont even know what the ORIGINAL "tea parties" were about and c) they beg the question of...WHERE WERE THEY WHEN BUSH WAS DRIVING UP THE DEFECIT? why are they only NOW just coming out??

Let's discuss the tea baggers...i mean the tea party!

[Black King]

i find my major problem with them to be simple, no one seems to have a clue WTF is going on with them. They never seem to get any sort of point across other then yelling that they hate what ever Obama is doing now and every News Network/Blog has a new report on them demographics and politics that contradicts everyone else's. What happened to intelligent logical protest?

[Jill Monroe]

oh there's more than a clue about what they're up to and what their base is made up of, angry middle aged white voters who are more often than not racist, generally not that intelligent or well versed in issues and are lead by the nose by pundits, fox aka faux news etc.

they want to "stop the government" but the funny thing to ME is, where were these people hollering about defecit spending when BUSH was driving up the defecit? and these same people will be EXPECTING the government to give them medicare, social security etc but they dont want to pay the taxes that FUND these programs.

to me the tea party is a waste of time at best, at worst its a sign of how people in this country are truly foolish and misguided.

[Pam De Beaufort]

In my Government class last semester, anytime we'd talk about the tea party my teacher would crack up and go "haha...any party that calls themselves tea baggers willingly needs to be ignored" LOL

They're a bunch of idiots. And since this party came into fruitation, politics have become even more aggressive and intolerable to talk about. :rolleyes:

[Archon]

Actually it was the media (CNN if I remember correctly) who began calling them "tea baggers." Can you imagine the firestorm if the media mocked a liberal movement this way? It's a double standard for sure.
I would catagorize tea party supporters as conservatives who are disillusioned with the establishment (Republican and Democrat alike). I just think there's a level of frustration that's reached a sort of critical mass and this is the expression. At least locally, there have been quite a few tea party supporters who at least claim to be Democrats. They would obviosuly be fiscally conservative Democrats, but they are sufficiently frustrated or concerned about the current trajectory of spending (up, up, up) that they've chosen to align themselves with people of a different politcal stripe.
There's no evidence that there is any racism going on here. That seems to be a bit of wishful thinking by liberals. Again, at least locally, there has been a pretty good minority representation at the parties. FRom what I've been able to tell, the local parties have also been very upbeat and really have felt like a large block party. Maybe that's atypical.
Moving on...
and these same people will be EXPECTING the government to give them medicare, social security etc but they dont want to pay the taxes that FUND these programs.

I think your premise is wrong. Most true conservatives would rather the .gov not be involved in medicare, social security, etc. True conservatism is about small government and personal responsibility. That would, of course, lead to lower taxes. I don't expect the governemnt to give me anything. I'd rather they didn't, in fact. The government is very good at a few things (building infrastructure, providing physical protection (in the form of the military and police) and (on a good day) creating a level playing field for Americans to compete in the free market system). I think we'd be a better, stronger nation if the government was much more limited in scope in influence.
WHERE WERE THEY WHEN BUSH WAS DRIVING UP THE DEFECIT?

Most informed conservatives were screaming even back then, there was just no real outlet for their voice. Even Rush Limbaugh hammered Bush over issues surrounding federal spending and the increasing national debt. But let's not fail to notice that Obama has increased our debt faster than any President in history. Our spending has reached an usustainable level and I do worry for our long term economic future.
Mostly what I see in this thread isn't any real discussion, just bashing and sterotyping participants in a conservative protest.
I personally think a) they are a racist party b) more than half of them are idiots
They never seem to get any sort of point across ...
their base is made up of, angry middle aged white voters who are more often than not racist, generally not that intelligent or well versed in issues and are lead by the nose by pundits
They're a bunch of idiots.
I mean, if that's your deal, go for it. I just wouldn't be so quick to mock the movement (or protest or party, or whatever you want to call it) just because you do not agree with their ideology.

[Rampage]

I can understand some conservative viewpoints. I see that spending is up and the economy is weak.

But I have these issues with the Tea Party People.

1) They were not only silent but SUPPORTIVE when Bush was in power. There was no groundswell of conservatives deriding his 2 Trillion dollar military escapades in Afghanistan and Iraq, not even a peep. So their loudness now rings hollow and opportunistic at best.

2) Obama is spending at a faster rate than any other President, as have virtually all Presidents before him and in response to an economy in tatters and a record deficit from the previous guy that the conservatives cannot WAIT to pin on him. The so-called tea party people started up as soon as Obama and not their guy came to power, that is why there is a concern for a lack of sincerity.

3) There is a lot of evidence that an alarming plurality at the very least of the Tea Party people consists of older white voters who are more likely to think that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, is Muslim, and in any case cannot think of a Black person for whom they would vote for President. This is the same crowd that was teenagers/young adults when Black were second-class citizens in this country by law. This is also the same crowd that is against Universal Health Care but for Medicare, that is against "handouts" but for Social Security and is the wealthiest set of older American's there has ever been but they come out in droves to protect their giveaways while railing against "special interests" which mostly consists of the groups that they once called much worse. Does this description fit ALL older white voters? Of course not. But it fits some of them, and nearly all of these people consider themselves Tea Party supporters. That is the reason for the backlash.

4) The Tea Part and their followers have engaged in particularly ugly, disruptive and even threatening behavior (a gun at a Presidential speech for REAL?!). It is not surprising that people have responded in kind. The harsh and shrill tone of the tea partiers, the hypocrisy exhibited by some of the opinions expressed and the timing of their emergence does much to discredit the ideals of the conservative movement they purport to represent.

[Pam De Beaufort]

I mean, if that's your deal, go for it. I just wouldn't be so quick to mock the movement (or protest or party, or whatever you want to call it) just because you do not agree with their ideology.


By idiots I meant they are extremists who refuse to take other view points into consideration. Very close minded when it comes to their politics. I actually work with members of the tea party and if I bring up a point that they don't like or disagree with they completely write me off and basically say it's "my fault" that Obama is in office.

Personally I don't vote by whether someone's a republican or a democrat, I vote for someone whom I believe will do a good job in office. In fact, here in FL there's a a republican governor [who recently became an independent actually], Charlie Crist, who's done a lot of good for our state that I voted for. I think that's the biggest issue I have with tea party members is that they don't look beyond their affiliation. And i'm NOT saying that is souly a tea party issue, but I do notice it more with the more conservative crowd.

But you have your opinion, I have mine. :)

[Jill Monroe]

shiiiii :p sam, dont back down from your personal observation that the tea party are IDIOTS cause i feel the same way.

I'm glad you responded, Archon, this lets VILANDRA know that she aint the only conservative on the board :p ;) we need differing view points to keep a discussion going.

now you mentioned that there was no evidence of the tea party being racist? are you sure about that? some of their earlier demonstrations, particularly theier marchs on capitol hill last year (if i remember correctly) and in states like ohio, showed several of them carrying OVERTLY racist signs with messages and pictures against black people! that was when Keith Oberman and others started slamming them but good. They've only RECENTLY gotten more slick about it in order to try to gain more credibility.

The Tea Party represenets a problem from the REPUBLICANS, not just everyone else because in many "red" states, theyve been going after "establishment" senators or candidates accusing them of "not being conservative enough" just look what happened in N evada with Sharon Angie who is "ULTRA conservative" she won the nomination for the mid term election. what do you say about that? there's extremism on both sides of the "isle" but as a free t hinking liberal who embraces such (apparently radical concepts to the right) things like DIVERSITY, EQUAL RIGHTS (for women, gays, blacks etc) and equal , freedom from religious oppression, and an level playing field for all can you tell me how something like the Tea party possibly could further those things? they seem to be the OPPOSITE of all those things i just mentioned.


and i find them to be right on par w/ the Westboro baptist church in terms of the level of hostility and frenzied hatred they carry among them. I wonder if they even know the TRUE historical meaning of "the tea party" from which they take their name?

[Pam De Beaufort]

^^ lol, I was just explaining that i'm not simply calling them idiots just to call them idiots. ;)

ETA:

he Tea Party represenets a problem from the REPUBLICANS, not just everyone else because in many "red" states, theyve been going after "establishment" senators or candidates accusing them of "not being conservative enough"

That's actually what happened here in FL. Charlie Crist was actually running for senator under the conservative party but Marco Rubio [who's a tea party member] joined the race and basically everyone began to say that Crist wasn't conservative enough. Crist changed to an Independent half way through his campaign. The hilarious part was he didn't return any of the money donated by conservatives to his campagin LOL. People were preeeeettty pissed. :p

[Caroline Forbes]

I think that's the biggest issue I have with tea party members is that they don't look beyond their affiliation. And i'm NOT saying that is souly a tea party issue, but I do notice it more with the more conservative crowd.

I'm not looking to get into an argument here, but the democrats are excellent at vilifying anything that's not a democrat, just because they're not a democrat.

[Pam De Beaufort]

I'm sure there are tons of democrats that do that. Just like there are tons of republicans that do the same. There are extremest in each party, and the tea party happens to be in the spotlight for being extreme conservatives. *shrug*

[Archon]

Frankly, I hope Republicans do feel threatened. The establishment needs to be shaken up.
...as a free t hinking liberal who embraces such (apparently radical concepts to the right) things like DIVERSITY, EQUAL RIGHTS (for women, gays, blacks etc) and equal , freedom from religious oppression, and an level playing field for all can you tell me how something like the Tea party possibly could further those things?
I'm really not sure how you could think tea party supporters oppose diversity, religious freedom, and equality. I mean, do you really believe all conservatives think that way? Do all liberals think that? If so, I can see why liberals are so angry all the time! That's not true, by the way. Conservatives are people too!
All the tea party is trying to accomplish is reigning in the scope and reach of government. That's it. That's the common thread that has brought so many people together (Republicans, Democrats, whites, and blacks).
It seems like all the sterotyping is just a way to write off the movement. "They are just stupid, racist, bigots. They aren't worth noticing." Let's just see what happens in November. Maybe the tea party experiment will fizzle and die or maybe it will actually have an impact on a national scale. It should be interesting either way.

[Jill Monroe]

noooo, I dont think ALL conversatives are "bad'. far from it. Yes i DO have a knee/jerk reaction to "conversative" outlooks because in my experience whether it was talking, or even those who held political office in areas t hat i lived in, conservatives typical spoke and acted AGAINST things like equal rights/protection for gay people and other minorities and they pushed a religious (mainly christian) agenda on the heels of "moral" posturing.

i know not EVERYONE who identifies as a conservative thinks the same way but i havent met any "liberal republicans" yet.

as for the Tea Party, I'm all at once concerned about them and also dismissive of them. I believe they DO have more than a little racist undertone, they've just gotten more media savvy and wont let that be seen in their demonstrations as much as it was last year or earlier. i do believe that the tea party is the result of the FAR RIGHT over taking the establishment Right. there's extremism on both sides, but in Texas you see schools now being forced to teach children (among other things) that the united state is a "constitutional republic" rather than a DEMOCRACY, you see them also forcing a religious agenda in their cirriculum. whatever happened to seperation of church and state? in that instance its the result of the tea party gaining more and more power in local and state positions down there.

we'll all have to wait till november and VOTE and see what happens. I AM worried because i dont want to be under the rule of extremists from EITHER side, but im keeping it real by saying i think the FAR RIGHT is a bit more oppressive and SCAREY than the "far left".

[Archon]

...being forced to teach children (among other things) that the united state is a "constitutional republic" rather than a DEMOCRACY
Well, technically, America isn't a democracy. At least not a pure democracy. We are a representative republic.
Taken from an essay by Frank Laughter...
The United States government is not an absolute or pure democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a representative democratic republic.

What's the difference? According to my Merriam-Webster:

•Democracy — Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (Ablsolute, or pure), or indirectly (representative).

•Republic — A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them.

whatever happened to seperation of church and state?
That phrase never appears in the Constution and was actually coined by Thomas Jefferson. It's clear from the following quote (and even more clear by some of the other founding fathers) that the "seperation of church" was intended to be a one way filter; to protect religion from the state, not the other way around

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


I AM worried because i dont want to be under the rule of extremists from EITHER side, but im keeping it real by saying i think the FAR RIGHT is a bit more oppressive and SCAREY than the "far left".
You realize that Obama is by far the most liberal President we've ever had, right? As far as being scary, well I guess that depends on what frightens you...

[Jill Monroe]

I dont find President Obama to be LIBERAL at all, if anything he's CENTRIST. He's certainly not the PROGRESSIVE that I thought I was voting for.

you're right, "seperation of church and state" didnt ORIGINALLY appear in the constitution but then again "one nation under god" wasnt ORIGINALLY in the pledge of allegiance either, THAT wasnt added until the communist scare back in the 50's. and if im not mistaken, seperation of church and state also came about during that same era as well. but the point is that its here NOW and since NOW than ever, this country is diverse in its spirituality as it is in its ethnicity...isnt it a BETTER idea to govern by LAW and NOT by religion? christianity is NOT what this country was founded on ( not all the founding fathers were not "exclusive" christians) and christianity is the youngest religion on the globe.

[Archon]

Based on any measurable standard (namely Obama's voting record and his legislation) he is, in fact, the most liberal President we've ever had. That's not my opinion, it just is what it is.

The term "seperation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson (who didn't have much use for religion, but recognized the need to protect it, none the less). He lived quite some time before Communism.

Of course it's best to govern by law. For an example of what can happen if you govern by religion, just look at any Islamic state. I'm pretty sure that's not working out too well for the women. The fact is, those in government are influenced by their religious convictions. There's really no way around that, nor should there be. We're all influenced by something. Most, not all, of the founding fathers we're, in fact, Christians.

Christianity is the youngest world religion, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you know the history of Christianty, you already know it's an extension of Judaism, which is the oldest religion in the world.

[Jacob Black]

I actually thought that most of the founding fathers were in fact atheists? In fact I am pretty sure they were?

[Pam De Beaufort]

If you know the history of Christianty, you already know it's an extension of Judaism, which is the oldest religion in the world.

I thought Hinduism predated both Judaism and Christianity?

[Archon]

I actually thought that most of the founding fathers were in fact atheists? In fact I am pretty sure they were?

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

I thought Hinduism predated both Judaism and Christianity?
Jews and Christians (and likely Muslims) would both dispute that. Hindusim does have the earliest written texts.