"There are two kinds of Tea Partiers.."

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Merc, Sep 10, 2010.

  1. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Whole article here.

    What do you think? I think it hits a lot of nails on the head. The Tea Party is not a united force and I think that's been clear for some time. I agree with Benedicts initial quote about the two different kinds and I think if the Tea Party ever wants to be taken seriously (because they are not for the most part at the moment) they need to define themselves much clearer and separate themselves from the disgruntled conservatives that just want a pretty new nametag.
     

  2. Hiei

    Hiei The Hierophant

    It's my understanding that the Tea Party movement isn't really just one political party, though. So, I don't fully understand how they can clearly define what they intend to be. If they break it down into certain movements that they want to have happen, then they'll either be labeled as democrap or republicunt. I thought they were just the average person that wanted the constitution upheld. Granted, they're protesting against things that Obama is doing, but that's because he's the current president and because Glenn Beck talks to them and they listen.

    But, if the tea party movement lasts longer than Obama's rein, and a republicunt takes office, they'll probably still remain the same. Just the average person that wants the constitution upheld.
     
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I would agree with this statement. I've been to Tea Parties... a true Tea Partier is an average American that is fed up with big Government. It has nothing to do with a political party. I've been to some where some people see no fault with the Republicans. When I point out to them that Republicans are just as corrupt, they look like they are going to have a stroke :mad: I simply point out to them that this is not a "Republican party" but simply a grassroots movement that wants to see all corruption and over spending in government eliminated.

    I don't like Obama as much as the next guy, but I also don't like a lot of the leadership in the Republican party. I believe that is what a true Tea Partier is. The Republican base I believe is trying to hijack that. What I want to see is the Republican party go back to it's Libertarian conservative roots, not where it is today.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
    Sim likes this.
  4. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Couldn't agree more. There are two kinds of tea party people: Few are fed up with big government, no matter if it's Republican or Democrat.

    The many others just claim to be in favor of small government, but in reality, they just hate Obama and the Democrats, but have no problem whatsoever with Bush giving the government almost fascist powers -- Patriot Act, huge military spending and bloated expenditures on military adventures abroad (some don't even realize that this is bigger government than any tax could ever be!), torture, extralegal detention and denial of fair trials. Those are the kind of cheer to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and how all these other quasi-Nazi fascists are called. The kind of people who hate Muslims, think Obama is one and whose IQ is somewhere near the level of that of a traffic light.

    These latter people are the worst scum on this planet and not any better than the Nazis were (and no, it this is not Godwin's Law, they actually are very similar to genuine Nazis. It's not a fallacy to call something that talks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi and thinks like a Nazi what it is -- a Nazi).

    But I have the highest respect for those few mindful, skeptical and engaged people who detest big government not just when it's fostered by a black Democrat, but who hate big government just as much when a Republican is responsible. People who think rah rah-patriotism, blind obedience to a grandstanding President who wraps the worst possible violations of the most basic civil rights in the flag or the largest increase of military spending ever since WW2 does constitute the worst kind of big government too.

    People who don't let themselves be fooled by Sarah Palin or all the other quasi-fascist Republicans who want to take advantage of that movement, in order to abuse it for their own gains.

    Kudos to the true libertarians!
     
  5. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Like I said, the "not real" Tea Partiers are just disgruntled Republicans and Conservatives looking for a new club house. Also, let's keep the Nazi talk to a minimum. It lowers the standards of any discussion immediately.

    It's Godwin's Law :lol:

    They're not the worst scum on the planet, they're the types of folk who hate change, think that traditions should remain in place and that all forms of progress are somehow infringing on natural law. They don't seek to eradicate a single group of people violently (yes, there are some nut jobs who love to joke about assassinating public figures such as the president) they're just a stubborn group. We just like to say Nazi because it invokes hate and opposition and it instantly vilifies people. They're just people with different opinions.

    I think there's a lot of people in this country who oppose big government but there's a lot of people who can't see where the government is taking hold. Healthcare for one, is not the government taking over. To me, that should be one of the definitions of a government, the welfare of the people it governs.

    I think people like Sarah Palin are just signs of desperation. Obama was aiming to be the first non-white president so the Republicans needed something different so they decided to go with a female VP but unfortunately they picked the worst possible one when there were certainly viable female republican candidates.
     
  6. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    My last comment from the Tea Party FTW thread: The Tea Party is a grassroots force to be reckoned with this election cycle. It is primarily an anti-federalist movement that (hopefully) will not become derailed by those that try to stereotype, fractionalize, divide, mischaracterize, and marginalize. It provides hope and a "big tent" that can include those that may or may not support the same or similar ancillary issues. Ruling class elites are in trouble unless they can come together to divide, marginalize, and/or co-opt the movement.

    The reason I cut and paste is to make this point: At this time I don't care why people identify with the tea party as long as we all vote together this November. There is currently an administration and elitist ideology that must be rejected this election cycle or I fear our country will have passed a point of no return. Once the message has been sent there will be plenty of time to separate the libertarian/conservative element from the republican sheeple. Hopefully we will overwhelm both parties and return our country to the constitutionally limited representative republic that our founding fathers envisioned. May God bless America and give us the wisdom to see the elitist career politicians for what they are: self-interested self-promoters who will say and do anything to achieve/retain power.
     
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    See, this is an extremely toxic and dangerous stance to take. Ignoring everything about a person and just focusing on the fact that they're "on your team" is an incredibly dense and ignorant way to run a campaign of any sort. Knowing the reason they joined is very, very important. You need to be united under the same cause. Sure, sit there and chant "limit government!" all you want but the fact remains there is a growing minority of racists, bigots, and all around hateful people joining and those are the kinds of people the tea party does not need to be associated with.

    Not to derail but I assume this should be an easy answer.

    Why is it elitist? I've yet to hear this properly and sanely explained. I mean, the republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts (or in other words, keep the wealthy wealthy and make the poor poorer) and that's pretty fucking elitist to me. Why is the current administration elitist?
     
  8. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    I refer back to the TeaParty FTW thread also. The TeaParty is not a party, it is a 2 issue movement. The 2 issues being the economy and jobs. What people fail to realize is you can have one foot in the TeaParty and one foot in any of the 'real' political party.

    ================copy/paste============
    This poll: The Winston Group Behind the Headlines: What’s driving the Tea Party Movement? Sort of highlights my idea that the TeaParty is a big tent party focused on 2 issues.

    This is some astonishing demographics:
    And this is the polling for the 2 issues economy and jobs.
    ================copy/paste====================

    My problem with what the Libertarian is saying is he assumes there is a large block that hates Obama and loves Bush and I've not seen that in any TeaParty events I have been to. On the contrary, the TeaParty is destroying the big government Bush Republicans: Murkowski, Bennett, Castle, Charlie Christ...

    I'm a big fan of the Libertarian Party. They put up an excellent candidate in 2008 with Bob Barr and would have gone further if not for the oddball VP candidate they had. But, this is just playing politics on the part of the Libertarian Party. The Democrat Party tried to destroy the TeaParty, the Republicans tried to co-opt and disband the TeaParty. Now the Libertarians are trying to hijack the movement. The TeaParty movement is much bigger than any party and it doesn't belong to the Dems, Repubs or the Libertarians.
     
  9. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I think I owe you all an explanation for me bringing this up time and again, so here you go:

    You have a government that violates the most basic human rights by kidnapping people from the street, extralegally detaining them, denying them defense and fair trials, and using torture. A government that started an unprovoked war against a country that was no imminent threat and certainly no match and could hardly ever have caused much harm, all based on vast exaggerations at best and blatant lies at worst.

    This government in question, which blatantly overstepped its constitutional boundaries by recklessly expanding executive power, was enabled to do so by an event that was very shocking for the public and caused support which wouldn't have existed under normal circumstances -- the attack of foreign enemies against national symbols.

    Then you got many people who call it "unpatriotic" not to support the government when it does that, people who believe supporting these human right violations is a patriotic duty. Dissenters are labelled "traitors" or "anti-American". Democratic dissent and public check for the government is called a crime (just an example: Ann Coulter calls it "treason").

    You have a people that gets rallied up against one religious minority group (in this case Muslims), the President even calls it a "crusade" (in Arabic: "Jihad" -- implying this is a war of Christianity against Islam), and the party in question keeps fueling the anti-Muslim sentiment by time and again painting all members of that religion with a broad brush, calling it the enemy (last example: Dick Cheney comparing Muslims in general to neo-Nazis).

    Now this situation has come so far that the plan for building a place of worship for this religious minority group is connected to the crimes of a few extremists among this group and thus rejected by more than two thirds of the population, who obviously hate this religious minority group. And this is just one example.

    Last example: Books that are connected to this religious minority group are being burnt. Burnt! Books being burnt! Remember who else did that?


    Constantine, please tell me: How more Nazi must it get before people see the obvious parallels? I'm sure even if the first labor camps were opened, some would still cry "Godwin's law!" if someone pointed to the parallels, just because the current President has no moustache.

    Of course I do not believe what's happening is as bad as it was in Nazi Germany. By far not. And I don't think the exact same thing will happen again.

    But I do think many of the horrible patterns that made Nazi rule possible are at work again, even if that's on a much lower scale, and even if there are still the worst groups of people missing that could take advantage of it, as the Nazis did in Germany.

    But that still doesn't make it good. On the contrary. This brew of sentiment among parts of the population is very dangerous -- and there are many similarities to Germany in the 20s and 30s. It can easily be abused. And if it persists, it will be abused eventually.

    And even if it's not likely the effects of these sentiments will be remotely as bad as they became in Germany, they could still lead to ugly, really really ugly mistakes and outcomings. It doesn't take a Holocaust before things are really ugly.


    What I'm trying to say is that this brew I see in parts of the public is a very dangerous mix, in some ways similar to that in pre-Nazi Germany (and it wasn't necessary in Germany either that it would lead to an outcome as bad as Nazis in power, it could have easily been less dramatic, if a few unfortunate factors had been different):

    Scapegoating against a religious minority and according massive prejudice and hatred that can and will be abused by hatemongers. So far, there is no Hitler who abuses it. But these sentiments just waits for someone like him to abuse them. Willing to bet there won't show up someone to do that eventually? There are enough people already to fuel this hatred, although not as prominent as the President.

    Then there was the 9/11 shock and the public accepted the expanse of executive power to an extent that violates the most basic human rights (the right on a fair trial for suspects is even older than the right to vote or the right on free speech!) -- there could hardly be a bigger government than one that's above the law, and the people was willing to support that, because of rabid nationalism. It was enough to wrap it into the flag, call it "patriotic" and point to the alleged enemy. It's true that these violations so far only affect a relatively small group of people -- but are you willing to bet this will stay that way? What if there is another attack and someone even much more sinister in power to abuse the subsequent public shock? Someone who really pushes the limits of the acceptable even more? And how much are you willing to bet that people would stand up against it, if there was another 9/11, considering how easily the "Patriot Act" and similar laws passed?

    I hope you see now where I am coming from. I am deeply worried.

    Not that the sitation is as bad as it was in Nazi Germany. But that many things, fundamental things are really going wrong, which simply shouldn't go wrong. Things that will, under the worst possible circumstances, easily be abused to create a really huge mess.

    The people should never let a government get away with things like extralegal detention and torture -- because when it does, it may buy many even more horrible things. The people should never have such a twisted idea of patriotism that it considers the fundamental necessity in a free republic to check the government by criticizing it "treason" -- because that opens the door for even more exessive abuse of government power. The people should never sacrifice basic freedoms because of fear of a foreign threat. And the people should never hold such a widespread prejudice, skepticism or often enough even hatred against a particular ethnic minority group -- because that can easily be abused for scapegoating, resulting in all kinds of ugly discrimination, even lynchings or worse excesses.

    I'm telling you, this exact mix was it that made Germany commit the worst collective mistake in its entire history, one which will affect our people forever. I'm concerned about America and just want to keep you from committing a severe mistake too, even if this mistake will never likely as big as Germany's. But it may be big enough. You never know.

    Politically, America is still much more stable than Germany was when it faced this dangerous brew of sentiments within the public, so it's not likely some Hitler-like person will soon show up and abuse all this, pushing it to the extreme. But what if there are more shocking events? Think of the economy. What if there is another crash, this time even more extreme than the last, causing a genuine national emergency? Might that, combined with the already existing factors I described, cause the call for a real new start, a kind of savior who will finally put an end to turmoil and bring back the old strength?

    We shouldn't wait until the chance for this arises, and should battle those important factors that are on the wrong track already: A wrong notion of patriotism that makes blind for government abuse, a kind of bigotry that scapegoats a religious minority and a culture that glorifies war.

    I hope you understand better now where I am coming from.
     

Share This Page