George Washington would be ashamed of the Tea Party.

Ozmar

This tree will shoot you.
Aug 25, 2010
3,741
431
48
North Carolina
The Dangers of Political Parties

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.
While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents. He argues that these parties' efforts to seize power and exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities and will ultimately end in despotism as people throw their support behind the most powerful faction and the faction focuses on increasing their own power instead of promoting the public liberty.
Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies amongst groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.
George Washington's Farewell Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just in case we aren't clear as to the irony of the Teabaggers trying to return to the founding principles, and indeed the sport-team like candor of modern day politics..:cuckoo:
 
A good point made in better times, I'd say. But considering that the founding fathers, including Washington, also talked about the possible need one day for "a second American Revolution" -- meaning war and bloodshed -- I think this might be the lesser of the two evils.
 
Last edited:
∑₭o Đ∆Żə;2755672 said:
A good point made in better times, I'd say. But considering that the founding fathers, including Washington, also talked about the possible need one day for "second American Revolution" -- meaning war and bloodshed -- I think this might be the lesser of two evils.

I do believe the only people who would say that are those who rationalize whatever it is the Tea party claims to represent: An overreaction to a situation that is in no way as dire as one would be led to believe.
 
Since the Tea Party (unlike the GOP or the Democrat Party) is NOT an actual political Party, there is no rational basis to assume that George Washington would be "ashamed" of the Tea Party movement.

In fact, I suspect that George Washington might been wondering what the hell has taken us so long to snap out of our national lethargy? He might be quite proud of the Tea Party movement which, properly understood, is a reaction to and against the direction our Government has moved.

I think we may more properly suspect, therefore, that George Washington would be proud of the Tea Party movement.
 
Just in case we aren't clear as to the irony of the Teabaggers trying to return to the founding principles, and indeed the sport-team like candor of modern day politics..:cuckoo:

Wow.

YOU can presume to know how a man that lived a couple of HUNDRED years ago might feel about this country, TODAY,

AND endue him with some POV???

Really?

He could NEVER have assimilated any of the facts of reality, and changed his opinion?

That's rather a foolish stance, on your part, imho.
 
Well, now we have proof.

Ozmar is indead a Living Dead Zombie, likely a traitorous turncoat during the Revolution.
 
I do believe the only people who would say that are those who rationalize whatever it is the Tea party claims to represent: An overreaction to a situation that is in no way as dire as one would be led to believe.

And on ^that^ note,

I'll call a pussy-ass a fucking pussy.

What do YOU think the Tea Party represents?

Does it have ANY basis in the reality of their stated goals?

What about me?

I want our Constitution to be our Ultimate Rule of Law,

with NO interpretations from fuktards,

the ONLY valid interpretation to belong to a Jury Of One's Peers,

as they listen to the ENTIRE story.

IF some judge has the ballz to tell me what and/or How to think?

I want to be able to bitch-slap him,

AND FIRE HIM,

since the interpretation of the PEOPLE is what makes a law,

the law.
 
Since the Tea Party (unlike the GOP or the Democrat Party) is NOT an actual political Party, there is no rational basis to assume that George Washington would be "ashamed" of the Tea Party movement.

In fact, I suspect that George Washington might been wondering what the hell has taken us so long to snap out of our national lethargy? He might be quite proud of the Tea Party movement which, properly understood, is a reaction to and against the direction our Government has moved.

I think we may more properly suspect, therefore, that George Washington would be proud of the Tea Party movement.
I never said the Tea party was a political party. Its divisive attempts to "restore" America to some imaginary state of glory by manipulating one side (the Republican party) against a perceived enemy would be exactly what George Washington warned us of.

Just in case we aren't clear as to the irony of the Teabaggers trying to return to the founding principles, and indeed the sport-team like candor of modern day politics..:cuckoo:

Wow.

YOU can presume to know how a man that lived a couple of HUNDRED years ago might feel about this country, TODAY,

AND endue him with some POV???

Really?
If you ever bothered to read, you would have a fair idea of what his POV was. That is why there is a huge amount of literature on the man.
He could NEVER have assimilated any of the facts of reality, and changed his opinion?
I'm sure he could have assimilated the facts of reality and drawn the same conclusions. What you are suggesting is that George Washington would change his viewpoint to your sick and twisted one. That makes you very presumptuous. :cuckoo:
That's rather a foolish stance, on your part, imho.
Well, opinions are like buttholes, which brings me to...

Well, now we have proof.

Ozmar is indead a Living Dead Zombie, likely a traitorous turncoat during the Revolution.
I am indeed a time traveler.

I do believe the only people who would say that are those who rationalize whatever it is the Tea party claims to represent: An overreaction to a situation that is in no way as dire as one would be led to believe.

And on ^that^ note,

I'll call a pussy-ass a fucking pussy.
I respect you candor. You are not one of those educated elites, and it shows.
What do YOU think the Tea Party represents?

Does it have ANY basis in the reality of their stated goals?

What about me?
What about you? :cuckoo:

I want our Constitution to be our Ultimate Rule of Law,

with NO interpretations from fuktards,[/quote] So you want the constitution to be about what you perceive it to represent in its language. What if you are wrong? Wouldn't that make you one of the fuktards you so disparage?
the ONLY valid interpretation to belong to a Jury Of One's Peers,

as they listen to the ENTIRE story.

IF some judge has the ballz to tell me what and/or How to think?
So any old group of Joe Schmos off the street should be able to be the jury? Doesn't sound like what's spelled out in the constitution. Sound very counter to the idea of rule of law spelled out in the constitution.

I want to be able to bitch-slap him,

AND FIRE HIM,

since the interpretation of the PEOPLE is what makes a law,

the law.
[/QUOTE] Good God. If the interpretation of the constitution was left to any old dickhead such as yourself, we would all be in deep trouble. :lol:
 
Since the Tea Party (unlike the GOP or the Democrat Party) is NOT an actual political Party, there is no rational basis to assume that George Washington would be "ashamed" of the Tea Party movement.

In fact, I suspect that George Washington might been wondering what the hell has taken us so long to snap out of our national lethargy? He might be quite proud of the Tea Party movement which, properly understood, is a reaction to and against the direction our Government has moved.

I think we may more properly suspect, therefore, that George Washington would be proud of the Tea Party movement.
I never said the Tea party was a political party. Its divisive attempts to "restore" America to some imaginary state of glory by manipulating one side (the Republican party) against a perceived enemy would be exactly what George Washington warned us of.* * * *

No no.

You said that GW WOULD be ashamed of the Tea Party and in alleged "support" of your baseless assumption, you quoted GW's warnings about political parties.

Your belated attempt to spin it, now that I have called you on it, is a fail.

And Tea Partiers are not manipulating or attempting to manipulate one side. They are angry voters (justifiably so) who are busy awarding pink slips to elected representatives.

Liberal Democratics are least able to change their liberal stripes and are thus less likely to adapt to the changed circumstances. Republicans might be a tad more educable. But those who object to the unConstitutionally LIBERAL policies of Congressional Representatives are unlikely to be registered Democrats. So the first Party to feel the wrath of the voters was the GOP.

Fear not. Liberal Democratics get their time soon enough in the GENERAL Elections. And this might prove yet to be a bigger deal than your silly OP supposes.
 
Since the Tea Party (unlike the GOP or the Democrat Party) is NOT an actual political Party, there is no rational basis to assume that George Washington would be "ashamed" of the Tea Party movement.

In fact, I suspect that George Washington might been wondering what the hell has taken us so long to snap out of our national lethargy? He might be quite proud of the Tea Party movement which, properly understood, is a reaction to and against the direction our Government has moved.

I think we may more properly suspect, therefore, that George Washington would be proud of the Tea Party movement.
I never said the Tea party was a political party. Its divisive attempts to "restore" America to some imaginary state of glory by manipulating one side (the Republican party) against a perceived enemy would be exactly what George Washington warned us of.* * * *

No no.

You said that GW WOULD be ashamed of the Tea Party and in alleged "support" of your baseless assumption, you quoted GW's warnings about political parties.

Your belated attempt to spin it, now that I have called you on it, is a fail.

And Tea Partiers are not manipulating or attempting to manipulate one side. They are angry voters (justifiably so) who are busy awarding pink slips to elected representatives.

Liberal Democratics are least able to change their liberal stripes and are thus less likely to adapt to the changed circumstances. Republicans might be a tad more educable. But those who object to the unConstitutionally LIBERAL policies of Congressional Representatives are unlikely to be registered Democrats. So the first Party to feel the wrath of the voters was the GOP.

Fear not. Liberal Democratics get their time soon enough in the GENERAL Elections. And this might prove yet to be a bigger deal than your silly OP supposes.

I fear not. George Washington most likely would have laughed at your deranged ramblings, then cried at the stupidity of all of this. In fact Washington would be considered one of those elitists, because unlike Teabaggers, he had class.
 
Last edited:
The Dangers of Political Parties

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.
While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents. He argues that these parties' efforts to seize power and exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities and will ultimately end in despotism as people throw their support behind the most powerful faction and the faction focuses on increasing their own power instead of promoting the public liberty.
Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies amongst groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.
George Washington's Farewell Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just in case we aren't clear as to the irony of the Teabaggers trying to return to the founding principles, and indeed the sport-team like candor of modern day politics..:cuckoo:
Yet another miserable FAIL!:spam:
 
I never said the Tea party was a political party. Its divisive attempts to "restore" America to some imaginary state of glory by manipulating one side (the Republican party) against a perceived enemy would be exactly what George Washington warned us of.* * * *

No no.

You said that GW WOULD be ashamed of the Tea Party and in alleged "support" of your baseless assumption, you quoted GW's warnings about political parties.

Your belated attempt to spin it, now that I have called you on it, is a fail.

And Tea Partiers are not manipulating or attempting to manipulate one side. They are angry voters (justifiably so) who are busy awarding pink slips to elected representatives.

Liberal Democratics are least able to change their liberal stripes and are thus less likely to adapt to the changed circumstances. Republicans might be a tad more educable. But those who object to the unConstitutionally LIBERAL policies of Congressional Representatives are unlikely to be registered Democrats. So the first Party to feel the wrath of the voters was the GOP.

Fear not. Liberal Democratics get their time soon enough in the GENERAL Elections. And this might prove yet to be a bigger deal than your silly OP supposes.

I fear not. George Washington most likely would have laughed at your deranged ramblings, then cried at the stupidity of all of this. In fact Washington would be considered one of those elitists, because unlike Teabaggers, he had class.

Sorry failure, but you remain wrong.

If I chapped your ass by exposing your fail, good. :lol::clap2:

As to Gen. Washington, he sure did have class, but he had no real formal education. He was a but gentleman farmer and a somewhat disappointing military man. Yet, even so, he quickly got identified by the common man as a superior leader. The gentlemen in the Constitutional Convention also quickly recognized his talents -- and the populace rightfully adored him. And the populace consisted of the very same type of people who had just cast off oppression from some "ruling class."

So, Gen. Washington would almost certainly have seen in the uprising of Tea Party members some of the very same spirit he seemed to cherish. :cool:

You simply have no clue as to what you incorrectly imagine you're talking about.
 
∑₭o Đ∆Żə;2755672 said:
A good point made in better times, I'd say. But considering that the founding fathers, including Washington, also talked about the possible need one day for "second American Revolution" -- meaning war and bloodshed -- I think this might be the lesser of the two evils.

Really?....you ever hear of "Revolution" at the ballet box?......
 
Since the Tea Party (unlike the GOP or the Democrat Party) is NOT an actual political Party, there is no rational basis to assume that George Washington would be "ashamed" of the Tea Party movement.

In fact, I suspect that George Washington might been wondering what the hell has taken us so long to snap out of our national lethargy? He might be quite proud of the Tea Party movement which, properly understood, is a reaction to and against the direction our Government has moved.

I think we may more properly suspect, therefore, that George Washington would be proud of the Tea Party movement.

and that is what i believe they meant by another "Revolution".....get rid of those bringing the Country down and insert those who are for the Country over party.....at the Ballot box....
 
I never said SHIT, even when/if my mouth was FULL OF IT. :rofl:

If you ever bothered to read, you would have a fair idea of what his POV was.

I get to read whatever I WISH to, and my tastes are more along the lines of "fantasy."

That is why there is a huge amount of literature on the man. I'm sure he could have assimilated the facts of reality and drawn the same conclusions.

Yet, you cite NOTHING to back your OPINION.

And, pal? YOU can't speak for someone from a time you never lived in. NO ONE could.


What you are suggesting is that George Washington would change his viewpoint to your sick and twisted one.

I've been called a lot of things,

but "sick" and "twisted" haven't really ranked up in the Top Ten, tbh.

Perhaps you should have sort of studied this forum before posting bullshit.

I've NEVER tried to force my views on ANYONE;

quite the opposite ~ I WELCOME other's evidence and logical assumptions,

and have NEVER been "married" to ANY of my big, fat theories, unless I see empirical evidence of the TRUTH,

'cuz, let's face it ~ you can't refute FACTS, now can you?


That makes you very presumptuous. :cuckoo: Well, opinions are like buttholes, which brings me to...

Well,

I mean,

the further down the tree you are,

the More Assholes you'll be looking up,

into...


I am indeed a time traveler.

YOU're a Time Traveler,

but I"M "crazy?"

Cripes.

Check THIS out: What if we're BOTH loony? :rofl:

It COULD be like that...


I respect you candor. You are not one of those educated elites, and it shows.

So you want the constitution to be about what you perceive it to represent in its language. What if you are wrong?

What THE PEOPLE of this land think, actually,

is the fail-safe to ONE of us being wrong.

Juries consist of TWELVE peeps.


Good God. If the interpretation of the constitution was left to any old dickhead such as yourself, we would all be in deep trouble. :lol:

Unlike the Utopia that we live in, NOW,

where everyone understands what the laws ARE,

WithOUT any so-called interpretation?

Yeah.

The lawyers YOU keep on retainer must LURVE you...
 
Last edited:
I do believe the only people who would say that are those who rationalize whatever it is the Tea party claims to represent: An overreaction to a situation that is in no way as dire as one would be led to believe.

Sorry that you don't see any need for something so drastic as a movement like the "Tea Party" -- which BTW is not a political party at all, but a movement -- we on the other hand do. Thanks just the same for all your caution.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top