Why the tea party movement is so frightening...

[editec]

The tea partiers are scary because they protest tyranny and carry pocket Constitutions...


OOOooooooooo....SCARY!

Yeah the antiwar movment, the civil rights movements all were accused of the same thing.

Anytime the PEOPLE gather in protest, those in power start talking about how threating that is to social order.

Note that in this nation being a demogogue is thought to be an insult?

Now what is a demogogue?

"a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular passions and prejudices "


Yeah, what a bad thing to do in a democratic republic, eh?

Appealing to the people for support.

Truly! How evil demogoguery must seem to people who essantially hate and fear that one day people will one day wake up and tear down the ediface of this shamocracy.

 

[CMike]

Dissent is a terrible threat to the neo liberals.

 

[William Joyce]

Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....

Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.

Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?

Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?

Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?

The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.

If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..

This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.

Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.

In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..

Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....

The fear is that whites are getting a backbone. There may be nothing to worry about right now, because the Tea Party people strenuously deny that they are "racist". But the fact is that race is what's motivating this... a white minority coming in 2042, a black president, Hispanic illegals flooding in... YES, VIRGINIA, whites are very worried.

They of course have a right to be. And they shouldn't fear just saying, "Yeah, actually, what bothers me is walking in to Wal-Mart and seeing three Muslim ladies in a hijab stroll past, a lady who doesn't speak English at the checkout and three shirtless black gangbangers eyeing me as I walk back to my car."

But they do. Being a "racist" is the system's biggest offense -- and remember, only WHITES can be "racist." Blacks, Hispanics, Jews... never racist. Even when they are.

The "system" is dominated by those who hate whites: Jews, anti-white minorities, a few self-hating whites.

Things like the Tea Party have the POTENTIAL to become a white resistance movement, and of course that will never do. Whites are supposed to just be quiet and keep providing the tax base for the minority state and the cannon fodder for Wars for Israel.

You wanted an honest answer about why the Tea Party is so controversial, and that's my offering.

But feel free to ignore it. The more truthful something is, of course, the more "racist" it is.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have not condemned the party of Bush in an offhand manner.
They have earned my disrespect.

Now see, this is one of the big mistakes of Tea Party haters. They are blind to the fact that most Tea Partiers are pretty damn pissed off at W too. Worse, they feel betrayed by him because many of them voted for him based on the belief that he would do some conservative things such as shrink the size of government. Much like some less radical elements of the DNC are feeling betrayed because Obama is a race baiter when he claimed to be post racial.

So, I don't see how you can equate the two groups with any honesty.

Why? Your original post is so slanted, the only people you will consider "reasonable and/or thoughtful" are those who have slanted opinions just like you. What kind of debate is THAT?

Then why do you even comment on the thread if you are incapable of acknowledging the subject?

 

[American Horse]

So unless I come to the same conclusions as you do on it I will have no reasonable responses?

Dude do you have a question or comment other than the trolling we have seen so far?

if you do please state it, if not then what are you crying about?

Seriously the OP was not picking a left or right side. if you read it and understood it you would know this... if you don't understand it please ask a question. I will try and make it more clear...

They've read it, they understand it, and they don't like the implications of it. Since - in their opinion - only fools, tools, dupes, and criminals occupy the right side of the political specturm, the purpose of their criticism is to discourage wanderers from the "true" path. Don't go there! Don't be one of them. They are the evil ones.! A word that describes those who do that is "blackguards" (blaggards - look it up)

Here is where they practice their defamation, because there's no better place to access their opponents and de-moralize them.

The danger in this practice is that they throw everyone into the same slanderous category, and the huge independent demographic, and also dis-affected Dems, neither of which take kindly to it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?

We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
It is called politics.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

 

[geauxtohell]

So unless I come to the same conclusions as you do on it I will have no reasonable responses?

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Wow. I am starting to sound like a broken record.

 

[geauxtohell]

I scanned through the OP.

From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:

1. They are caught up in emotion

2. They are manipulated by special interests

Ironic that we say the same thing about the Tea Party.

Then again, it's a little hard to debates the merits of a "movement" that doesn't really have an official position, leader, or platform.

 

[Zona]

Rand Paul!

 

[Zona]

I scanned through the OP.

From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:

1. They are caught up in emotion

2. They are manipulated by special interests

Ironic that we say the same thing about the Tea Party.

Then again, it's a little hard to debates the merits of a "movement" that doesn't really have an official position, leader, or platform.

They do have a leader...his name is Dick Armey.

 

[Foxfyre]

Initial impression scanning through the thread to this point:

1. Wordy but well written OP with plenty of meat for discussion.

2. Typical mostly kneejerk 'kill the messenger' posts from the left with typical unsupportable ad hominem and one liner talking points that you can find repeated throughout leftwing sites on the Internet. No original or thoughtful concepts detected.

3. The inevitable criticism of the kneejerk "kill the messenger' posters from those who might otherwise have discussed the thesis.

4. The few who actually did attempt to discuss the thesis were pretty much drowned out by the other stuff.

So, having said that, my two cents worth here:

To those who criticize the Tea Partiers because they didn't protest during the Bush administration, they didn't have to. Your side was out there in force protesting anything and everything. The Tea Partiers became truly alarmed, however, when TARP was passed in late 2008 as most Tea Partiers saw that as a really bad and dangerous thing. The evidence was in letters to the editor and on the message boards.

Now that Obama is President, even though the exact same problems exist, all those protesters during the Bush administration have crawled back into the wood work. This would suggest they hated the man and not so much his policies, yes?

And as the indefensible (as the Tea Partiers see it) TARP legislation has been escalated, misused, abused, and trillions of dollars of mistakes along with erosion of individual rights have been piled on top of it all during last year, the Tea Partiers became concerned enough and angry enough to mobilize.

They are the voice of the people expressing their opinions and they aren't attacking people or parties. They are attacking bad ideas, bad programs, indefensible fiscal irresponsibility, and deficits that threaten to bankrupt the nation.

And in my opinion, people fear them because deep down they know they are right.

 

[geauxtohell]

I scanned through the OP.

From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:

1. They are caught up in emotion

2. They are manipulated by special interests

Ironic that we say the same thing about the Tea Party.

Then again, it's a little hard to debates the merits of a "movement" that doesn't really have an official position, leader, or platform.

They do have a leader...his name is Dick Armey.

And they dispute that, just as we dispute being manipulated by "special interests".

That's a curious statement to make, however. There isn't an "anti-Tea Party" movement. Just ordinary Americans who find the movement absurd (or insert appropriate pejorative here).

Since there is no organized effort, it would be a little hard to be "manipulated by special interests".

 

[gslack]

Stop blaming the media for teparty failure to get their message out. They're the ones who are allowing Bachman and Palin to take over. Extreme religious righters.

You seem very whiney and unfocused. Explain their simple minded leadership and their inability to get the "true" teaparty message out. You can't other than to blame the media the reason? They are simply what we the people see them as. Hate, ignorance and intolerance. Nothing more.

Crybaby.

WTH?????

I didn't cry nor did I insult you at all!!!!!! Please point to where ANY of this happened in my post..... I was respectful and gave a legitimate example based on personal experience, and asked you respectfully if your opinion was based on what you know from experience or from what you are told by the media...

Fact: Palin does not run the tea party, nor does any other candidate...

Your response to my question, and immediate claim of sarah palin (known idiot and opportunistic press whore) shows exactly where you get your information on this from....

THe only crying that went on was YOU in the last post.... I showed my personal experience regarding this and asked on yours, and you resorted to being dismissive and generalizing tea party(ers) to palin and bachman supporters, and insulting me...

Once again you make my OP all the more clear....

Of course. The only correct opinion is yours, in your own mind.

You've been blaming the media with every post. The teapartiers are protesting around the country and the press is taking pics of the people and their signs, they're yelling and taunting, they are not peaceful protests. They're haters alright.

WTF???? I said no such thing.... All you have done is parrot what MSNBC says.. you have shown nothing of your own thoughts based on any experience with them. Nor have you even attempted to do any research outside your liberal slanted MSM outlets. And whats worse you resorted to name calling and absolutes. Absolutes taken straight from Olberman and the talking heads at MSNBC...

You obviously don't actually know about these tea parties, all you do is follow the liberal line on this.... I challenge you to go and look for yourself... Seriously what do you have to loose, other than possibly some preconceptions? If they are so bad a quick visit to one will clarify it... And wouldn't that be better than taking anyone else's word? At least you could have something more than repeating the PR....

 

[Samson]

I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....

I scanned through the OP.

From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:

1. They are caught up in emotion

Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)

2. They are manipulated by special interests

Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?

Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."

In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?

Well, the OP was actually about the media and the political parties use or abuse of the tea party movement versus what they most likely (in most cases) actually represent...

All political parties seek power. For good or bad, right or wrong they all do..

OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.

 

[gslack]

I scanned through the OP.

From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:

1. They are caught up in emotion

Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)

2. They are manipulated by special interests

Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?

Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."

In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?

Well, the OP was actually about the media and the political parties use or abuse of the tea party movement versus what they most likely (in most cases) actually represent...

All political parties seek power. For good or bad, right or wrong they all do..

OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.

Agreed 100%..... Good post, very truthful...

 

[geauxtohell]

OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.

The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system. If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.

If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.

 

[Samson]

OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.

The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system. If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.

If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.

Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?

I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?

If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.

The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system. If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.

If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.

Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?

I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?

If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.

I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:

1) The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.

2) Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states. When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.

3) The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever. And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans. Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.

 

[Samson]

The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system. If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.

If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.

Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?

I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?

If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.

I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:

1) The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.

2) Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states. When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.

3) The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever. And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans. Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.

A playground is more difficult to build today than it was.

But I'm surprised that a third party wouldn't really be EASIER to build.

1. Obviously the Dems & Republicans don't want competition, but they've never been less popular

2. Why shouldn't it be easy to raise money? More people today have cable TV and internet, and I, for example, know more about growing "upside-down tomatos" than people could have ever imagined 20 years ago! Hell, I may even BUY ONE.

3. Media...pttthhhhhhhhhhhh......becomming less and less influential every time a toddler learns to log-on to the internet.

No, there will be some major changes in store for Dems & Repubs, either in 2012, 2016, 2020......We're just seeing the begining of the results of a modern (internet based, traditional media-independent political movement). No longer will representatives be shipped off to Washington to chase skirts and make backroom deals without answering for them THE SAME HOUR as consituants demand active representation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?

I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?

If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.

I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:

1) The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.

2) Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states. When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.

3) The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever. And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans. Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.

A playground is more difficult to build today than it was.

But I'm surprised that a third party wouldn't really be EASIER to build.

1. Obviously the Dems & Republicans don't want competition, but they've never been less popular

2. Why shouldn't it be easy to raise money? More people today have cable TV and internet, and I, for example, know more about growing "upside-down tomatos" than people could have ever imagined 20 years ago! Hell, I may even BUY ONE.

3. Media...pttthhhhhhhhhhhh......becomming less and less influential every time a toddler learns to log-on to the internet.

No, there will be some major changes in store for Dems & Repubs, either in 2012, 2016, 2020......We're just seeing the begining of the results of a modern (internet based, traditional media-independent political movement). No longer will representatives be shipped off to Washington to chase skirts and make backroom deals without answering for them THE SAME HOUR as consituants demand active representation.

I hope there will be major changes and major reforms within all political parties. Never has the country more desperately needed that.

But it is harder for a non-Democrat or Republican to raise money because they don't have the big, experienced,and well tested political machines the major political parties have, and therefore they don't have the connections to the big money donors that the major political parties have. Why do people give really big donations to political parties or candidates? There are exceptions, but for the most part it is not out of some noble ideological purpose. It is to have a foot in the door and the ear of those in power.

Few big money donors will take a chance on an unknown quantity. There are literally dozens of registered political parties in the United States, but most people have never heard of most of them, and even the more familiar ones are not considered viable in anything other than really local elections.

And don't shortsell the media influence either. Given the deplorable lack of curiosity re the issues and credentials of the candidates by so many of the electorate, name recognition and star appeal has become as important as anything else. The media may be in low esteem these days, but they still have the power to get the names and photos out there. And they can word headlines, pose photos, and cast the names into short impresssions that do color how the people feel about those candidates.

Those of us who actually do study the candidates and the issues are not as easily manipulated. But alas, I fear far too many are.