By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The Tea Party - how frightening is this movement?

rocketpig said:
theman88 said:

I am a Republican and i agree that some of them are a little out there   and maybe uneducated.... and unexperienced (A certain current President comes to mind with the unexperienced) But i will say that what they stand for   the main issues, not removing separation of church of state because that needs to stay, but most of their issues are the result of how this country is dissatisfied with our politicians and the corruption in the government. Our government is so screwed up right now and need fresh people in office not the old same incumbents who are lining their wallets and ruining our country

Like I said, I agree with some of their economic issues but the complete lack of intelligence within the party from its major candidates and the extreme religious fervor found in some of them is really, really fucking scary.


Eh, that part should disapear in time.

It actually is only around now due to so many people buying into the bogus racist label... keeping out a lot of the socially liberal democrats.  Most of the Tea party movement is pretty accepting to anyone economically liberal.  The whole Sarah Palin thing is another thing entirely.

It's all very complicated as the Tea party isn't really a movement, so much as a bunch of different movements with the same goals.



Around the Network
ManusJustus said:

I'm more afraid of Mormon Republicans.  In Utah the've gerrymandered the state so that conservative Mormons can have control of every faction of government.  For instance, In downtown Salt Lake City, myself and two of my neighbors have different representatives from each other, but I vote with child molesting Mormons in St. George, which is in the opposite part of the state.

At least the Tea Party supports democracy.  Though I may not agree with them, a majority of Americans do favor overturning the first amendment religion clause.

Interesting. Do you have a source and was Mitt Romney part of the gerrymandering?



rocketpig said:
badgenome said:
ManusJustus said:

B.  To be honest, I don't know much about Coons so he could be an idiot, but I do know that O'Donnell is a complete idiot.

Thing is, this happened moments later in the same debate. O'Donnell asked him to name five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that was the only one he knew. I'm not sure if O'Donnell is truly ignorant or was just being too cute by half, but she nailed him. Predictably, Coons wasn't the story because nobody cares about him - least of all his own supporters.

Which was followed by what can only be considered a baffling statement by O'Donnell that questioned the freedom of religion by apparently not knowing it was in the First Amendment. On the idiot scale, Coons can't compete with O'Donnell unless he shows up to the next debate wearing nothing but Spider-Man underoos and a colander on his head. The list of idiotic quotes from O'Donnell is longer than my arm.

Actually, O'Donnell's gaffe was first and she pressed the issue, catching Coons with his pants and Spider-Man underoos down, which makes me think it's possible she knew what is in the First Amendment and was trying to be coy.

Either way, when the conventional wisdom is that O'Donnell is unelectable, people should probably scrutinize the dude who's actually going to be the next Senator from Delaware. Won't happen, though, because there are too many influential people who are positively sick with hate for O'Donnell, while Coons is as interesting as cardboard. It's akin to Obama not being vetted because Saturday Night Live said that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. O'Donnell may be a dimbulb, but she definitely cheeses off all the right people.



badgenome said:
rocketpig said:
badgenome said:
ManusJustus said:

B.  To be honest, I don't know much about Coons so he could be an idiot, but I do know that O'Donnell is a complete idiot.

Thing is, this happened moments later in the same debate. O'Donnell asked him to name five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that was the only one he knew. I'm not sure if O'Donnell is truly ignorant or was just being too cute by half, but she nailed him. Predictably, Coons wasn't the story because nobody cares about him - least of all his own supporters.

Which was followed by what can only be considered a baffling statement by O'Donnell that questioned the freedom of religion by apparently not knowing it was in the First Amendment. On the idiot scale, Coons can't compete with O'Donnell unless he shows up to the next debate wearing nothing but Spider-Man underoos and a colander on his head. The list of idiotic quotes from O'Donnell is longer than my arm.

Actually, O'Donnell's gaffe was first and she pressed the issue, catching Coons with his pants and Spider-Man underoos down, which makes me think it's possible she knew what is in the First Amendment and was trying to be coy.

Either way, when the conventional wisdom is that O'Donnell is unelectable, people should probably scrutinize the dude who's actually going to be the next Senator from Delaware. Won't happen, though, because there are too many influential people who are positively sick with hate for O'Donnell, while Coons is as interesting as cardboard. It's akin to Obama not being vetted because Saturday Night Live said that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. O'Donnell may be a dimbulb, but she definitely cheeses off all the right people.

It's pretty bad when her own party chairman thinks she's not fit to be elected dog catcher. When a candidate's own party comes out and blatantly bashes them like that, there is something HORRIBLY WRONG. Even parts of her own party don't want her elected and are limiting funds allocated to her. That's insane.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:
badgenome said:

Actually, O'Donnell's gaffe was first and she pressed the issue, catching Coons with his pants and Spider-Man underoos down, which makes me think it's possible she knew what is in the First Amendment and was trying to be coy.

Either way, when the conventional wisdom is that O'Donnell is unelectable, people should probably scrutinize the dude who's actually going to be the next Senator from Delaware. Won't happen, though, because there are too many influential people who are positively sick with hate for O'Donnell, while Coons is as interesting as cardboard. It's akin to Obama not being vetted because Saturday Night Live said that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. O'Donnell may be a dimbulb, but she definitely cheeses off all the right people.

It's pretty bad when her own party chairman thinks she's not fit to be elected dog catcher. When a candidate's own party comes out and blatantly bashes them like that, there is something HORRIBLY WRONG. Even parts of her own party don't want her elected. That's insane.

I suspect it has nothing to do with her being stupid and/or crazy and/or whatever, if that's what you're implying. It probably doesn't even have as much to do with the fact that Castle would have been a shoo-in had he won the nomination as it does with the fact that Castle was the establishment GOP guy and the establishment GOP is pretty butthurt right about now.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
rocketpig said:
badgenome said:

Actually, O'Donnell's gaffe was first and she pressed the issue, catching Coons with his pants and Spider-Man underoos down, which makes me think it's possible she knew what is in the First Amendment and was trying to be coy.

Either way, when the conventional wisdom is that O'Donnell is unelectable, people should probably scrutinize the dude who's actually going to be the next Senator from Delaware. Won't happen, though, because there are too many influential people who are positively sick with hate for O'Donnell, while Coons is as interesting as cardboard. It's akin to Obama not being vetted because Saturday Night Live said that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. O'Donnell may be a dimbulb, but she definitely cheeses off all the right people.

It's pretty bad when her own party chairman thinks she's not fit to be elected dog catcher. When a candidate's own party comes out and blatantly bashes them like that, there is something HORRIBLY WRONG. Even parts of her own party don't want her elected. That's insane.

I suspect it has nothing to do with her being stupid and/or crazy and/or whatever, if that's what you're implying. It probably doesn't even have as much to do with the fact that Castle would have been a shoo-in had he won the nomination as it does with the fact that Castle was the establishment GOP guy and the establishment GOP is pretty butthurt right about now.

If that was the sole reasoning, The GOP would be giving her a little love right by now because they'd rather have a GOP candidate in there over a Democrat. They're not. They want nothing to do with O'Donnell and from what I've seen, it's one of the more cogent decisions the GOP has made in recent years.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

I pray Australia never becomes what the USA has become.



Smart Men answer questions, Wise men ask questions.
Gamers play games, True Gamers support Gaming

ConnorJCP said:

I pray Australia never becomes what the USA has become.

You mean it's not already? I've met some pretty damned intolerant people from Australia, especially if they're from rural areas. They stack up unfavorably even to the most redneck of Americans.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:
badgenome said:

I suspect it has nothing to do with her being stupid and/or crazy and/or whatever, if that's what you're implying. It probably doesn't even have as much to do with the fact that Castle would have been a shoo-in had he won the nomination as it does with the fact that Castle was the establishment GOP guy and the establishment GOP is pretty butthurt right about now.

If that was the sole reasoning, The GOP would be giving her a little love right by now because they'd rather have a GOP candidate in there over a Democrat. They're not. They want nothing to do with O'Donnell and from what I've seen, it's one of the more cogent decisions the GOP has made in recent years.

I disagree. It seems probable that they would rather lose one election than lose their own party to people who aren't beholden to them.



rocketpig said:
ConnorJCP said:

I pray Australia never becomes what the USA has become.

You mean it's not already? I've met some pretty damned intolerant people from Australia, especially if they're from rural areas. They stack up unfavorably even to the most redneck of Americans.

No, its not even half as bad as the USA.
USA is still pretty split up between the states.
In USA alot of people believe in religion, and are extremely hypocrite when it comes to their 1st amendment and they tend to forget the rest of the world doesnt share it.
Although ever since Howard lost the election, Australia is becoming worse though. (IMO)
But no, it is not nearly as bad as The USA.



Smart Men answer questions, Wise men ask questions.
Gamers play games, True Gamers support Gaming