Why the tea party movement is so frightening...

[Samson]

History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen. Look at Russia and China. Perfect examples.

So then Jefferson, Adams, and all the rest were the poor and uneducated as well I suppose? They were part of a group that was pretty much feeling the same way.... When we had our first tea party in this country, there was a massive destruction of British property in the dumping of the tea into the harbor. Have there even been any acts of vandalism anywhere near that directly related to a tea party?

You generalize this like that and call people uneducated who participate or support the tea parties, yet you fail to realize the truly uneducated tend to follow the status quo rather than oppose it.....

Let's face it rdean's grip on the present is a little slippery, so his understanding of historical context is something that's difficult to take seriously, much less discuss.

The American Revolution was somewhat unique in that the revolt was against a relatively free government, (GB had a parliment) and didn't seek to unseat that government. In fact, had the Britian's Parliment simply allowed the colonies have any representation, or any "slack" the revolution probably would have fizzled, and we would be no more independent than Canada, or Australia.

As a result of British Intrangedance, our government is inherently designed to give slack.

 

[gslack]

History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen. Look at Russia and China. Perfect examples.

So then Jefferson, Adams, and all the rest were the poor and uneducated as well I suppose? They were part of a group that was pretty much feeling the same way.... When we had our first tea party in this country, there was a massive destruction of British property in the dumping of the tea into the harbor. Have there even been any acts of vandalism anywhere near that directly related to a tea party?

You generalize this like that and call people uneducated who participate or support the tea parties, yet you fail to realize the truly uneducated tend to follow the status quo rather than oppose it.....

Let's face it rdean's grip on the present is a little slippery, so his understanding of historical context is something that's difficult to take seriously, much less discuss.

The American Revolution was somewhat unique in that the revolt was against a relatively free government, (GB had a parliment) and didn't seek to unseat that government. In fact, had the Britian's Parliment simply allowed the colonies have any representation, or any "slack" the revolution probably would have fizzled, and we would be no more independent than Canada, or Australia.

As a result of British Intrangedance, our government is inherently designed to give slack.

Agreed, anyone who hasn't realized the reality of our origins need to take the BS blinders off... Perhaps the original intent was to get fair treatment and representation, but after realizing we could govern ourselves and the concept of god and then King began to fade away, the intent of the revolution and earlier revolt changed.

However, the founders still started out in much the same way the tea partiers of today have. Sure there were a few trying to use it for their own ends, but much like today they are not the core nor the norm. Sure had the crown been a bit more understanding we might still be a subject to them, but they didn't and we didn't... At the time England's parliament was in the hands of the elite ruling class. Virtually no seat would have been held by anyone not of "noble birth". Nobles who swore allegiance to the crown, and without that crown they would not have their noble right. They were the King's people they were allowed their ability to take seats in parliament only by the Kings leave.

Trying to liken their parliament especially at that time to a true democracy or even republic of duly publicly elected representatives, is a bit of a stretch. There was no labor party back then because according to the crown they were not fit to participate in governance beyond cheering at political speaking engagements.

Many of conventions in the Constitution bear a striking resemblance to the English counterparts at the time. Despite these similarities, the core or essence of what they represent are in stark contrast. The British concept of the time was God, King, and then country... Here the idea was God, country, then government.. Our founding documents tell us to throw out bad governance and rulers like so much rubbish, I haven't heard of any such sentiment in English law of that time... Or even know for that matter...

I do not see how those men were heroes for this, and somehow today any who even dare gather and speak to one another directly are a threat to good governance....

 

[Stainmaster]

After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;

don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.

 

[gslack]

I expected some kind of substance.... We have multiple thoughtful posts on this in here, and the response from the other side so far has been the same crap they get from MSNBC.... What do you base this opinion on? have you been to one? Have you seen one nearby? Also, the concept of advanced citizenship requires not our blind devotion or mindless participation, but rather our opposition on things we disagree with.

The right to peaceful assembly and free speech was designed to protect the people from an overbearing government. And in our founding documents we are reminded the right and duty to create a new government whenever the old one no longer serves the public good. only a close minded fool would make a decision based on what someone else told him.. And an even bigger fool would rely on a media with an agenda to supply him with his knowledge...

 

[geauxtohell]

You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues? I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.

The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights. The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.

You are still missing the larger point. The way our system is designed creates a two party system. Forget all these schumky-fantasies about "this or that" conspiracy keeping the third parties down. It's absurd.

If the LP comes to power, they will most likely replace the GOP, not become a third option. It might be that way for a short while but eventually, one of them will die off.

Either way, the LP has been putting their issues out for a few decades and still is in the political basement. That's not a conspiracy either, they just don't appeal to a broad enough base of voters.

 

[Foxfyre]

You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues? I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.

The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights. The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.

You are still missing the larger point. The way our system is designed creates a two party system. Forget all these schumky-fantasies about "this or that" conspiracy keeping the third parties down. It's absurd.

If the LP comes to power, they will most likely replace the GOP, not become a third option. It might be that way for a short while but eventually, one of them will die off.

Either way, the LP has been putting their issues out for a few decades and still is in the political basement. That's not a conspiracy either, they just don't appeal to a broad enough base of voters.

Oh I think I get it and I think I understand where you are coming from. I just see things from a different angle.

I haven't suggested any conspiracy theories keeping third parties down. It isn't a conspiracy at all. It is a simple fact that there is a finite amount of money available for political parties and campaigns, and those with the best chance to deliver value for money contributed are going to get most of it. A party with little name recognition and candidates with little name recognition and/or mass appeal simply is not going to be viable regardless of its platform, nor will it get much help from the media.

Every now and then the grass roots does raise up a candidate that catches the imagination of a sizable number of people, and at some point such person outside the two major parties may be charismatic and believable enough to win. Wallace was one of those but was simply too radical and polarizing as well as racist to attract much of the vote. Perot was another who didn't have Wallace's negatives, and if he hadn't wigged out and gone looney tunes, he very well might have won in 1992.

It is possible the Tea Partiers will tag a capable and charismatic person to run, and enough people are so thoroughly disgusted with the President and Congress that such a person could be a serious contender.

And again I'll refer you to some major points in the Libertarian Party's platform previously posted here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...movement-is-so-frightening-6.html#post2340952

The LP can't gain any attraction with so many platform planks that are contrary to the views of mainstream America, plus I think they sometimes work overtime to recruit the most unappealing candidates they can find.

 

[gslack]

You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues? I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.

The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights. The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.

You are still missing the larger point. The way our system is designed creates a two party system. Forget all these schumky-fantasies about "this or that" conspiracy keeping the third parties down. It's absurd.

If the LP comes to power, they will most likely replace the GOP, not become a third option. It might be that way for a short while but eventually, one of them will die off.

Either way, the LP has been putting their issues out for a few decades and still is in the political basement. That's not a conspiracy either, they just don't appeal to a broad enough base of voters.

Dismissing what fox said as a conspiracy theory is an excuse in my opinion... In fact the only thing I have heard in the thread even close to a conspiracy theory is the way the left posters have tried to make the tea party movement a right wing conspiracy to give hate and racism a platform..

I don't understand the logic in calling this a right wing conspiracy and then telling someone to forget conspiracy theories..

There is no conspiracy, there doesn't need to be. This is the natural and logical next step for a government wishing to keep the status quo to take. Anytime a government becomes powerful it will seek to retain that power..

 

[geauxtohell]

Dismissing what fox said as a conspiracy theory is an excuse in my opinion... In fact the only thing I have heard in the thread even close to a conspiracy theory is the way the left posters have tried to make the tea party movement a right wing conspiracy to give hate and racism a platform..

When I said "conspiracy theory", I was referring to the popular notion that third parties are kept down by the man or the major parties or whatever. It's silly and shows an ignorance of political science. Our country has a two party system by design (though most likely un-intentional). It's winner takes all. Three teams don't play in the Superbowl. Two do. If we were a parliamentary system there would be more parties and caucuses and power sharing (I am not advocating for that).

Just look at our country. Three parties have never remained viable for long. Eventually, one party engulfs the other.

I don't understand the logic in calling this a right wing conspiracy and then telling someone to forget conspiracy theories..

That's because we are talking about separate things. I don't really think the Tea Parties are a right wing "conspiracy". I certainly think they are propped up by right wing interest, PACs, and are overwhelmingly GOP voters. You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries.

My belief is that the GOP embraced the tea parties, because they were scared to death of the enormous popularity Obama generated in 2008. The movements themselves have been organized and funded by PACs who also represent corporate interests that the DEMs are generally hostile too. You can read about it in my sig line. So what you have, in essence, is a group of squirmashers that the GOP hoped would create the perception of mass public disapproval of Obama (hence the lame talking line "grass roots" and semi-funny retort "astroturf") who are no pushing out incumbents.

It's ironically funny. However, on the national scale, the tea party is going to alienate moderates.

There is no conspiracy, there doesn't need to be. This is the natural and logical next step for a government wishing to keep the status quo to take. Anytime a government becomes powerful it will seek to retain that power..

It's not a "conspiracy", but the movement is not as transparent and "golly-gee, this just all fell together!" as its proponents would have you believe.

Also, if you all got your wish and the Tea Partiers all got in office, they would just become part of the system and eventually be viewed as "the problem". What happened to the Republican revolution?

Americans love to be disgruntled about their elected officials. It's almost as American as apple pie. However, on election day, pragmatism usually wins out.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;

don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.
​

Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie? Poor show fool, poor show.

 

[Stainmaster]

After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;

don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.
​

Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie? Poor show fool, poor show.​

The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.

Your parents must be So Proud.

 

[Stainmaster]

The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.

Your parents must be So Proud.

This is a pretty standard come back. I have received it 4 or 5 times. I don't get the relavance of it, but yes, my conservative Republican Parents are proud of me. I just received an honorary MBA from UCDavis and AAAA's for work done in my field of marketing.

 

[AllieBaba]

Which I guess means you aren't a kid. Which puts a whole new slant on your belief that all kids should have straight and anal sex by the age of 16 or be forced to go to a "sex therapist".

Let me guess...do you consider yourself a "sex therapist"?

 

[Stainmaster]

Which I guess means you aren't a kid. Which puts a whole new slant on your belief that all kids should have straight and anal sex by the age of 16 or be forced to go to a "sex therapist".

Let me guess...do you consider yourself a "sex therapist"?

We can start that thread again. It got so stupid, it would hardly be worth anyone's time including mine. I stood up for teens based on an article I read in Psychology Today, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.

Why don't you go start a thead, AllieBaba, I am sure we would all enjoy hearing your thoughts on teen sex?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

The topic of this thread is;

"Why the tea party movement is so frightening..."​

 

[Big Fitz]

Stainbigot's back on his rant about non-existent racism and nerd pr0n?

 

[Samson]

I stood up for teens based on an article I read in Psychology Today, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.

I guess I'm so old I cannot recall wheter or not "I trounced it," but I'm sure I could use an opinion regarding my sexual adequacy.

Volunteers?

 

[Big Fitz]

I stood up for teens based on an article I read in Psychology Today, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.

I guess I'm so old I cannot recall wheter or not "I trounced it," but I'm sure I could use an opinion regarding my sexual adequacy.

Volunteers?

Samson. Yer into squid porn. Don't send me slow passes over the middle like that. They're too tempting.

 

[Samson]

I stood up for teens based on an article I read in Psychology Today, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.

I guess I'm so old I cannot recall wheter or not "I trounced it," but I'm sure I could use an opinion regarding my sexual adequacy.

Volunteers?

Samson. Yer into squid porn. Don't send me slow passes over the middle like that. They're too tempting.

You're also a guy

 

[gslack]

Dismissing what fox said as a conspiracy theory is an excuse in my opinion... In fact the only thing I have heard in the thread even close to a conspiracy theory is the way the left posters have tried to make the tea party movement a right wing conspiracy to give hate and racism a platform..

When I said "conspiracy theory", I was referring to the popular notion that third parties are kept down by the man or the major parties or whatever. It's silly and shows an ignorance of political science. Our country has a two party system by design (though most likely un-intentional). It's winner takes all. Three teams don't play in the Superbowl. Two do. If we were a parliamentary system there would be more parties and caucuses and power sharing (I am not advocating for that).

Just look at our country. Three parties have never remained viable for long. Eventually, one party engulfs the other.

I don't understand the logic in calling this a right wing conspiracy and then telling someone to forget conspiracy theories..

That's because we are talking about separate things. I don't really think the Tea Parties are a right wing "conspiracy". I certainly think they are propped up by right wing interest, PACs, and are overwhelmingly GOP voters. You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries.

My belief is that the GOP embraced the tea parties, because they were scared to death of the enormous popularity Obama generated in 2008. The movements themselves have been organized and funded by PACs who also represent corporate interests that the DEMs are generally hostile too. You can read about it in my sig line. So what you have, in essence, is a group of squirmashers that the GOP hoped would create the perception of mass public disapproval of Obama (hence the lame talking line "grass roots" and semi-funny retort "astroturf") who are no pushing out incumbents.

It's ironically funny. However, on the national scale, the tea party is going to alienate moderates.

There is no conspiracy, there doesn't need to be. This is the natural and logical next step for a government wishing to keep the status quo to take. Anytime a government becomes powerful it will seek to retain that power..

It's not a "conspiracy", but the movement is not as transparent and "golly-gee, this just all fell together!" as its proponents would have you believe.

Also, if you all got your wish and the Tea Partiers all got in office, they would just become part of the system and eventually be viewed as "the problem". What happened to the Republican revolution?

Americans love to be disgruntled about their elected officials. It's almost as American as apple pie. However, on election day, pragmatism usually wins out.

You seem to forget when third parties get usurped by or melded into another party, that party changes.. Republicans of today are not like the republicans Jefferson was a part of. The Democrats went from adams to jackson and all points between and when they split and came together again they were forever changed. Two party system is not hardwired into our government, its a simple logical next step when two separate parties are both weaker than another and share enough similarities to compromise and join together. it has nothing to do with it being part of any system especially not one that wasn't designed with parties in mind at all.

Your statement where you said;"You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries." Dude thats just a silly statement really.... Of course not, first the Dems are in power and obviously part of the problem the tea party movement has. THat would be like running a reform campaign as an incumbent its just retarded... Second, a tea party candidate would need to be part of legitimate political party. Don't think I can register a tea party voter yet... its not a party in the sense of republicans and democrats. The left likes to pretend sarah palin or bachman are the tea party candidates but thats just nonsense. Anyone with any sense knows palin is a joke politically. Third, we won't see many running in republican primaries either...

Your claim they were embraced by republicans in 2008 from fear of obama's popularity denies the fact at that time they were protesting Bush's economic policies predominately. At the time the tea parties were very small and not getting much attention. Again all I see is the standard liberal/progressive claims here... You dismiss them as right wing and that is a fallacy perpetrated in the media to keep people hemmed into the concept that two dimensional thinking. Either left or right is acceptable and only them. Anything else is obviously an extreme one way or another. Thats dismissive and categorically not true at all.... Most tea party movement followers are people who have had enough of the BS in government and they do not distinguish between the two kinds of BS, they simply recognize it as BS...

Dude your last statement was just silly generalities which we could say about any potential party... Again its all based on your perception you get from your preferred media. If you do not go and see for yourself how can you simply dismiss them?

 

[gslack]

After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;

don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.
​

Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie? Poor show fool, poor show.​

The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]YouTube - Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10[/ame]

Dude I have to say despite you're ignorant post, that has to be the gayest avatar I have seen here.....Seriously man, I don't care what your preference is but the avatar makes gay people cringe.....​