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?

mhsillen said:

This thread is crazy

Frightened of the tea party? Nut Up!

Maybe you should be more afraid of the radical socialist Obama agenda.  Or the fact that he won't work with republicans.

Or the fact he goes on a Spanish radio station and says that anyone who is concerned over illegal aliens is the enemy.

Or Obama suing Arizona because they want to protect their citizens  

But no were scared of the tea party.  

So much ignorance, so little time...



Around the Network
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:

What is the 'real' Tea Party anymore?


Much like the "real" Republicans, or the "real" Democrats, the "real" tea-party are the individuals who make up the party not the people who try to control it ...

In the absence of people injecting talking points and forcing partisan arguments, most of these people would share similar values to other people who are a part of their party; but these values would probably be much different from the values the elite in the party would be pushing.

I just feel like the tea party has become somewhat bogged down in too many competing idealogies - I can't really identify as a whole what it's fighting for now. If it was fighting to change the system into one that wasn't a duopoly I would be supporting it - but instead it just seems to be merging with the GOP.

@Mshillen. Obama isn't radical socialist. For a socialist look at somebody like Chavez. Obama is just a bit more socialist than most US politicians. Also I hardly think Obama can be blamed entirely for the Republicans and Democrats not getting along.

 

My point is people are afraid of this peaceful group and ignoring the fact that Obama is going after his fellow Americans .  



TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:

Guess who spends 1B dollars a day fighting socialized health care? I'm not going to trust in Reagan when the people who stand to lose the most money (and who've shafted me times over) are on the same side.


Reagan was not liked by the GOP when he ran. He was not the one they wanted running for president. He was the Ron Paul of his time.

And you have not been shafted by Republicans. You have been shafted by Washington. I hope the last 18 months of the White-house, and 4 years in Congress, has at least proven to you that the problem is not Republican or Democrate. It's to few people having to much power.

I understand that completely. I'm against a 2 party system. However, all I know is what I've learned, maybe it's all backwards, but republicans have been against my beliefs from the get-go. I believe in equality for all people and the freedoms that come with that equality, and it's always looked like the red was against that. Even now, gay rights is just the latest in a long line of battles for equality.

I would prefer an independant, but the tea party is not what I see as the solution.



whatever said:
mhsillen said:

This thread is crazy

Frightened of the tea party? Nut Up!

Maybe you should be more afraid of the radical socialist Obama agenda.  Or the fact that he won't work with republicans.

Or the fact he goes on a Spanish radio station and says that anyone who is concerned over illegal aliens is the enemy.

Or Obama suing Arizona because they want to protect their citizens  

But no were scared of the tea party.  

So much ignorance, so little time...

Well go for it professor.  Oh I'm so smart that I can't deal with these ignorant hillbillies



Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:

What is the 'real' Tea Party anymore?


Much like the "real" Republicans, or the "real" Democrats, the "real" tea-party are the individuals who make up the party not the people who try to control it ...

In the absence of people injecting talking points and forcing partisan arguments, most of these people would share similar values to other people who are a part of their party; but these values would probably be much different from the values the elite in the party would be pushing.

I just feel like the tea party has become somewhat bogged down in too many competing idealogies - I can't really identify as a whole what it's fighting for now. If it was fighting to change the system into one that wasn't a duopoly I would be supporting it - but instead it just seems to be merging with the GOP.

@Mshillen. Obama isn't radical socialist. For a socialist look at somebody like Chavez. Obama is just a bit more socialist than most US politicians. Also I hardly think Obama can be blamed entirely for the Republicans and Democrats not getting along.

If the way US politics worked, was that if you got less then 50% of the vote, you had a runoff election with just the top two candidates, then I would say the Tea Party would serve itself better by forming it's own political entity. Being it does not work that way, all a 3 party system does is put the other guys in office.

For this reason, reforming the Republican party I think is a far smarter move.

As for Obama being a socialist, He is the closest thing we have ever had with the amount of power he has. The only thing that keeps him from really being a socialist, is our form of government does not allow it. If he has full control to do whatever he wanted, I am sure he would be very much in line with Chavez.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:

What does that have to do with the Tea Party?

Obama goes around and tells blacks they need to vote to keep his policies going, like somehow just because they are Black, they have the same views politically as him. He doesn't see how that's racist either.


That's the problem with the tea party.It's many groups with the same end goal...all with different means and motives, and they get tagged with a lot of things a "majority" may not agree with.

and maybe not all blacks agree with his policies, but I think it's fair to say that a good deal of his policies go towards helping minorities.



theprof00 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:

Guess who spends 1B dollars a day fighting socialized health care? I'm not going to trust in Reagan when the people who stand to lose the most money (and who've shafted me times over) are on the same side.


Reagan was not liked by the GOP when he ran. He was not the one they wanted running for president. He was the Ron Paul of his time.

And you have not been shafted by Republicans. You have been shafted by Washington. I hope the last 18 months of the White-house, and 4 years in Congress, has at least proven to you that the problem is not Republican or Democrate. It's to few people having to much power.

I understand that completely. I'm against a 2 party system. However, all I know is what I've learned, maybe it's all backwards, but republicans have been against my beliefs from the get-go. I believe in equality for all people and the freedoms that come with that equality, and it's always looked like the red was against that. Even now, gay rights is just the latest in a long line of battles for equality.

I would prefer an independant, but the tea party is not what I see as the solution.

What are gay rights? When did they get rights I don't have? There are no Gay Rights, Woman's Rights, Minority Rights, or any other sub group rights. There are Human rights, and we all get them.

In my perfect world, there would be no issues with respect to sexual preference and the federal government, because the federal government would have no laws where it mattered.

There would be no marriage tax credit. No recognition of marriage of any kind, because there would be no need to care if your married or not, and to who your married too. The Federal government would be indifferent to the concept of marriage.

For me, the party that closest maps that view, is Libertarian. The current movement that is closest to my views, is the tea party.



whatever said:

Except she then followed this with the fact that she didn't know what was in the 14th, 16th, or 17th admendents as well as she couldn't name a single recent supreme court decision.  For a self stated constitutional expert, that's pretty pathetic.

The first part is true, but the second part not so much. She couldn't name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed. Neither can I, as I think the Roberts court has been largely acceptable.



theprof00 said:

and maybe not all blacks agree with his policies, but I think it's fair to say that a good deal of his policies go towards helping minorities.


I completely disagree. How has a minority group been helped by his policy? Are more blacks working now they when he took office? Are the ones working living a better life?

Do they have more affordable healthcare today then they did when he took office? Is crime lower where they live? Do they have more education options how then before?

Are there kids someone imune to the massive debt he is leaving to the next generation?

The US is in worse shape today, then it was 20 months ago. That effects all Americans.



TheRealMafoo said:

What are gay rights? When did they get rights I don't have? There are no Gay Rights, Woman's Rights, Minority Rights, or any other sub group rights. There are Human rights, and we all get them.

In my perfect world, there would be no issues with respect to sexual preference and the federal government, because the federal government would have no laws where it mattered.

There would be no marriage tax credit. No recognition of marriage of any kind, because there would be no need to care if your married or not, and to who your married too. The Federal government would be indifferent to the concept of marriage.

For me, the party that closest maps that view, is Libertarian. The current movement that is closest to my views, is the tea party.

"X Rights" is the name of the movements to restore the rights therein, we do not all get them. Once upon a time, women couldn't own property, vote, etc. Same for blacks. Doctors in some places can refuse treatment of gays.

I don't know if you disagree or not..I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your viewpoints.