The ideology of the TeaParty movement

[african1]

We said it time and time again, many older whites cannot stomach the fact that there exists a black president. So they formed a party.

YouTube - David Duke Speaks to the Tea Party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDeNBsD8iRc)

Ladies and Gentlemen, David Duke, a proud supporter of the tea-party movement.

http://aliciapatterson.org/APF1503/Berry/Berry01.jpg

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/ishnbecm.jpeg

[hippifried]

I don't think all the teabaggers are klan/nazis, but they have a major infestation problem.

[PomonaCA]

Oh noes! They call me a nazi!

[hippifried]

See something in that statement that you recognize as relating directly to you, do ya?

[PomonaCA]

See something in that statement that you recognize as relating directly to you, do ya?


And don't forget that we're all racist, too.

[african1]

And don't forget that we're all racist, too.

glad to see you finally came clean. :smh

[muhmuh]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/images/smilies/Christz_pillepalle.gif

the funny thing about colonies is that ultimately history has proven that convicts and hookers are better at running a country than religious nutters

[onmyknees]

We said it time and time again, many older whites cannot stomach the fact that there exists a black president. So they formed a party.

YouTube - David Duke Speaks to the Tea Party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDeNBsD8iRc)

Ladies and Gentlemen, David Duke, a proud supporter of the tea-party movement.

http://aliciapatterson.org/APF1503/Berry/Berry01.jpg

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/ishnbecm.jpeg


Ok Africa...I'll bite mainly becaue of your ignorance...but let's lay some facts on the table. First off...The TEA Party existed well before Obama was elected, that's just a fact.
Secondly...Obama won the presidency by a coalition, and by attracting white middle calls Americans by the tens of thousands. That too is a fact. Sooo...if we follow your twisted logic, we would have to believe that all these white folks voted for him, only to turn against him one year later? Frankly that's wishful thinking by you, and it's the lazy mans way of explaining Obama's problems with white voters.
Third fact...David Duke may be talking to the Tea Pary, but they ain't listening. Please do some homework and find the research papers done by real researchers who studied the tea party movement. Stop listening to Al Sharpton and playing on You Tube and get informed. Knowledge is a powerful thing.

By assuming you know the motives and desires of Tea Party members and try to explain them by calling them racist is lazy and ignorant. Sorry, but it's much deeper than reaching for the race card like so many blacks and liberals seem to be doing these days. Your tactic of labeling people who disagree with Obama as racist lacks credibility and it's frankly lame an old. Jesse Jacksson has been trying that for years, and he's essentially becaome a side show.That certainly won't stop you from trying though...you're bound and determined to find a racist behind every tree.
Your punishment for being so lazy is to read the following paragraph several times until you understand it. It explains rather nicely what you're trying to do....you seek to depress dissent by trying to play the oldest trick in the book.
"
There is a great deal of genteel moaning in the air about civility, or the lack thereof, in American political life today. One can certainly sympathize with some of it, in the abstract. And yet too often the real object of such talk is the suppression of dissent rather than the improvement of debate, by disparaging the opposition as “uncivil.” That misses the very point of civility and its reason for being. The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard. One of the most blatant violations of the canons of civility in recent years has been the persistent effort to defame conservative policy prescriptions, groups, and movements as toxic, racist, pathological, and unworthy of public standing. We are seeing it happen once again in the sneering treatment of the Tea Party by reporters, pundits, and politicians, as well as, most lamentably, by the president of the United States himself. This is just another example of the persistent compulsion on the part of American liberals to write self-aggrandizing and self-defeating obituaries for ideas that remain stubbornly, persistently, and vigorously alive."

[Amsterdamage]

yeah and to add a little something to it: the Tea Party (which originally is more of a movement rather than a 'party') of nowadays has quite little to do anymore with what the Boston Tea Party used to stand for when it was funded. Same counts for the Republican party by the way. There's a world's difference between what these parties originally stood for and what most members of them stand for today. Unfortunately.

[african1]

Your punishment for being so lazy is to read the following paragraph several times until you understand it. It explains rather nicely what you're trying to do....you seek to depress dissent by trying to play the oldest trick in the book.
"
There is a great deal of genteel moaning in the air about civility, or the lack thereof, in American political life today. One can certainly sympathize with some of it, in the abstract. And yet too often the real object of such talk is the suppression of dissent rather than the improvement of debate, by disparaging the opposition as “uncivil.” That misses the very point of civility and its reason for being. The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard. One of the most blatant violations of the canons of civility in recent years has been the persistent effort to defame conservative policy prescriptions, groups, and movements as toxic, racist, pathological, and unworthy of public standing. We are seeing it happen once again in the sneering treatment of the Tea Party by reporters, pundits, and politicians, as well as, most lamentably, by the president of the United States himself. This is just another example of the persistent compulsion on the part of American liberals to write self-aggrandizing and self-defeating obituaries for ideas that remain stubbornly, persistently, and vigorously alive."


Well maybe it took you a long time and many reads and rereads to slightly comprehend the passage you just posted, but at least have the decency and self-respect to quote the original author of that passage. Or are you going to plagiarize everything written on the subject and call it your own? Will you at last do some original thinking of your own?

For all: the essay was written by Wilfred M. McClay on Commentary Magazine. Unsurprisingly it was the conclusion of his comment as well.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/-the-report-of-our-death-was-greatly-exaggerated--15561

[yodajazz]

Ok Africa...I'll bite mainly becaue of your ignorance...but let's lay some facts on the table. First off...The TEA Party existed well before Obama was elected, that's just a fact.
Secondly...Obama won the presidency by a coalition, and by attracting white middle calls Americans by the tens of thousands. That too is a fact. Sooo...if we follow your twisted logic, we would have to believe that all these white folks voted for him, only to turn against him one year later? Frankly that's wishful thinking by you, and it's the lazy mans way of explaining Obama's problems with white voters.
Third fact...David Duke may be talking to the Tea Pary, but they ain't listening. Please do some homework and find the research papers done by real researchers who studied the tea party movement. Stop listening to Al Sharpton and playing on You Tube and get informed. Knowledge is a powerful thing.

By assuming you know the motives and desires of Tea Party members and try to explain them by calling them racist is lazy and ignorant. Sorry, but it's much deeper than reaching for the race card like so many blacks and liberals seem to be doing these days. Your tactic of labeling people who disagree with Obama as racist lacks credibility and it's frankly lame an old. Jesse Jacksson has been trying that for years, and he's essentially becaome a side show.That certainly won't stop you from trying though...you're bound and determined to find a racist behind every tree.
Your punishment for being so lazy is to read the following paragraph several times until you understand it. It explains rather nicely what you're trying to do....you seek to depress dissent by trying to play the oldest trick in the book.
"
There is a great deal of genteel moaning in the air about civility, or the lack thereof, in American political life today. One can certainly sympathize with some of it, in the abstract. And yet too often the real object of such talk is the suppression of dissent rather than the improvement of debate, by disparaging the opposition as “uncivil.” That misses the very point of civility and its reason for being. The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard. One of the most blatant violations of the canons of civility in recent years has been the persistent effort to defame conservative policy prescriptions, groups, and movements as toxic, racist, pathological, and unworthy of public standing. We are seeing it happen once again in the sneering treatment of the Tea Party by reporters, pundits, and politicians, as well as, most lamentably, by the president of the United States himself. This is just another example of the persistent compulsion on the part of American liberals to write self-aggrandizing and self-defeating obituaries for ideas that remain stubbornly, persistently, and vigorously alive."

Ok I'll commend you for making a post without name calling. I see lots of name calling on this forum, and other places, more by conservatives. One issue is that many general terms have multiple meanings. For example; What does it mean to "take America back"? Did someone take it away? If we are talking about back in time, then what time? If we talk about back in time, I can remember a time when Blacks were not allowed to drink at certain water fountains, use certain restroom facilities, or had separate areas in public places. And the list goes on.

I, for one have not said that conservative views are not worth of public standing. But I will critique any issue, and still try to be respectful. But I personally have been called all sorts of names here, like stupid, etc. I have a college degree, and lots of life experience. But likewise with Obama. On the message posts, on Yahoo News, many people call him stupid, or that he hates America. You may disagree with his positition on the issues, but he is not stupid. And saying that he hates America doesnt even make sense. Name any other President, of which this has been said. I have come to believe that conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh are in reality, destroying the US.
Where are people getting the idea that Obama hates America? If you look at it in depth, one comes to the conclusion that someone is raising hatred, using a term like that. I see the word, "liberal", being thrown about like a curse word. People are saying such things as; all liberals, which are tens of millions people, do not want jobs. It is getting so that people do not even see those holding those views as human beings. And that is a path to destruction, when you cannot recognize another, as a human being.

So onmyknees, I challenge you on any issue, and I will treat you with respect, even if you don't respect me. Better yet, since this thread is about the Tea Party, what do they stand for in your eyes?

[hippifried]

"There is a great deal of genteel moaning in the air about civility, or the lack thereof, in American political life today. One can certainly sympathize with some of it, in the abstract. And yet too often the real object of such talk is the suppression of dissent rather than the improvement of debate, by disparaging the opposition as “uncivil.” That misses the very point of civility and its reason for being. The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard. One of the most blatant violations of the canons of civility in recent years has been the persistent effort to defame conservative policy prescriptions, groups, and movements as toxic, racist, pathological, and unworthy of public standing. We are seeing it happen once again in the sneering treatment of the Tea Party by reporters, pundits, and politicians, as well as, most lamentably, by the president of the United States himself. This is just another example of the persistent compulsion on the part of American liberals to write self-aggrandizing and self-defeating obituaries for ideas that remain stubbornly, persistently, and vigorously alive."
I don't buy this even a little bit. It's the same old whine that, somehow, ignoring or pointing out rude behavior is a violation of the freedom to speak. This line: "The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard.", is where the whole silly argument falls apart. There's no such thing as a "right to be heard". There's no right to be listened to. There's no right to have anyone else pay attention to you at all, or to be taken seriously in any way. Nobody's interfering with the freedom of speech. But freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to be invited the grownup table to spout bullshit.

From what I can tell, the anti PC snivel is about impunity. Somehow the meme has taken life that freedom is the ability to say anything & not be called out for it. That ain't how it works. A freedom for one is a freedom for all. There's no such thing as impunity. Shouting down some fool on a soapbox or calling someone out for spouting klan/nazi rhetoric is also freedom of speech. For exampe: If somebody doesn't want to be called a racist, then they shouldn't be quoting the grand wizard as a prophet. Inverse is the same. "I'm not a commie, but Chomski this & Chomski that, blah blah ad nauseum..." We end up getting tangled in a bunch of lame & inane philosophical arguments over whether to follow Franco or Lenin, & forget that this is now, with a whole new set of problems. I see no reason to follow any proven failures.

What everybody calls the "teaparty" isn't. That movement fell apart in a couple of weeks as it got infested with fundamental extremism & co-opted by the republican party for their own gain. Every crackpot & their brother claims to be speaking for them. They lost their focus. Should the media take them seriously? Personally, I don't think they should have, but they did. The co-opted teaparty organization efforts were based on constant media coverage. As the old saw says: "All publicity is good publicity." That doesn't have to be true. In the early '70s there was a teaparty movement started with organizing help from some of the "clean for Gene" people who had turned Alinsky tactics on their ear. They stayed focused, did everything door to door, & worked to keep the radicals at bay. Since they weren't a fundraising group or trying to get anybody elected, the media ignored them & they stayed under the radar. They were wildly successful across the the country, in nearly every State that had both a sales tax & an initiative process, getting the status of retail food irems changed to non-taxable.

[onmyknees]

I don't buy this even a little bit. It's the same old whine that, somehow, ignoring or pointing out rude behavior is a violation of the freedom to speak. This line: "The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard.", is where the whole silly argument falls apart. There's no such thing as a "right to be heard". There's no right to be listened to. There's no right to have anyone else pay attention to you at all, or to be taken seriously in any way. Nobody's interfering with the freedom of speech. But freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to be invited the grownup table to spout bullshit.

From what I can tell, the anti PC snivel is about impunity. Somehow the meme has taken life that freedom is the ability to say anything & not be called out for it. That ain't how it works. A freedom for one is a freedom for all. There's no such thing as impunity. Shouting down some fool on a soapbox or calling someone out for spouting klan/nazi rhetoric is also freedom of speech. For exampe: If somebody doesn't want to be called a racist, then they shouldn't be quoting the grand wizard as a prophet. Inverse is the same. "I'm not a commie, but Chomski this & Chomski that, blah blah ad nauseum..." We end up getting tangled in a bunch of lame & inane philosophical arguments over whether to follow Franco or Lenin, & forget that this is now, with a whole new set of problems. I see no reason to follow any proven failures.

What everybody calls the "teaparty" isn't. That movement fell apart in a couple of weeks as it got infested with fundamental extremism & co-opted by the republican party for their own gain. Every crackpot & their brother claims to be speaking for them. They lost their focus. Should the media take them seriously? Personally, I don't think they should have, but they did. The co-opted teaparty organization efforts were based on constant media coverage. As the old saw says: "All publicity is good publicity." That doesn't have to be true. In the early '70s there was a teaparty movement started with organizing help from some of the "clean for Gene" people who had turned Alinsky tactics on their ear. They stayed focused, did everything door to door, & worked to keep the radicals at bay. Since they weren't a fundraising group or trying to get anybody elected, the media ignored them & they stayed under the radar. They were wildly successful across the the country, in nearly every State that had both a sales tax & an initiative process, getting the status of retail food irems changed to non-taxable.

well of course you don't by it....You're answering someone else's argument...not mine. Not once did I mention free speech or the infringement of it. Take your first amendment speech to someone else. You're changing the discussion into something you want it to be....frankly that's either cunning....or ignorant or perhaps both. You fall back into the same tired safe zones about Nazi Klan rhetoric, so you and I can't have an intelligent discussion. It's counterproductive to engage someone who uses this tactic. I can tell by your writing you've never been to a TEA Party meeting or rally. You rely on what others say and write for your informational basis and that's appearently good enough for you because it fits nicely with your political leanings.

You are flat wrong about your assumptions on the Tea Party. Any serious political commentator would argue otherwise with respect to thier impact this cycle, not withstanding your baseless opinion to the contrary. From the day Pelosi laughed them off as "Astroturf" to the constant misinformation passed by a lazy, idealogically driven press, they have been demeaned and underestimated. They moved a possible 30 seat mid term Democratic loss to a 63 seat shellacking. Your party lost the entire mid west from Pennsylvania to the California line and took a pasting in the once safe Democratic south and upper midwest. There's my proof...where's yours? What election map are you looking at? You think those gains came because voters fell in love with Republicans? Hardly....it was a motivated base spurred and pushed by the Tea Party Chapters. Not one chapter of the Tea Party I am familiar with has been co-opted by the Republican Party. Your logic is confounding and your proof questionable. If the Tea Party was infiltrated by Republicans...why would they have put a sure looser as the nominee in Delaware ? That was a shot across the bow. The warning shot to establishment Republicans that this wasn't going to be bussiness as usual. They were tired of electing "moderate/liberal" Republicans only to have to hold thier breath every time a key vote came. Where are you getting your information from? Yes, they lack central management, but that's the beauty of it all....and since you can't define, quantify, or qualify this movement you seek to label it as loud, ignorant, racist or all of the above. Your political thinking is old school my friend. This is a new era.

I'm simply saying this...the progressive answer to the Tea Party phenomenon is to do precisely what you attempted to do in your post. You seek not to engage them on the issues, but render them to the sidelines by the Nazi/Klan bullshit that so easily flows from the mouths of progressives like rehearsed lines from a play. It didn't work....it won't work ..it's been over used, over done and ineffective, but go right on and keep up the good fight , you sound like a good soldier, or at least you parrot thier arguments! . The old line about telling a big enough lie for long enough , isn't working. For a brief period progressives had it all...both houses of Congress, the Executive Branch, 35 State Legislatures and the majority of Governorships, They had waited decades for the right leader, and he was in place...but it was all stripped away from you by silver haired Grannys and older men in flannel shirts and polyester pants carrying signs and organizing meetings. I can understand why you would seek to "shout down some fools on a soap box", but in closing...They didn't get mad at your defamation...they got even . I don't necessarily blame you for your ignorance regarding the Tea Parties, the Republicans don't fully grasp them either, but they will.

[onmyknees]

Hippifried....to further you post election education, I urge you to take a look at this Washington Post article..( That's the Wa Po...not Fox News)
Here's some more of those loudmouth Nazi/Klan Tea Baggers you readily disparage. Hmmmm looks more like a picnic than a Klan rally !!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html?wprss=rss_nation&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wp-dyn/rss/nation/index_xml+(washingtonpost.com+-+Nation)

[hippifried]

well of course you don't by it....You're answering someone else's argument...not mine.
Wow! You finally got something right. I wasn't responding to you at all. I was responding to the inane anti-PC snivel that you posted & touted, & the other responses to the same inane snivel. I wouldn't be responding to you now except that you addressed me by name, twice in the last 2 posts. I guess I must've said somethin'. So as a courtesy, hi. Let me know if you have something to say. So far, not impressed, & that pretty much lets you out as an "educator" that I would be interested in.

[yodajazz]

Hippifried....to further you post election education, I urge you to take a look at this Washington Post article..( That's the Wa Po...not Fox News)
Here's some more of those loudmouth Nazi/Klan Tea Baggers you readily disparage. Hmmmm looks more like a picnic than a Klan rally !!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html?wprss=rss_nation&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wp-dyn/rss/nation/index_xml+(washingtonpost.com+-+Nation)

Ok, so every tea party person is not racist. They show signs of concerns about various issues, as well a a few directly racist, or personal attacks on Obama. I'm asking what is the real solutions, to the real issues, not just what they are against? For example, 7-8 million unemployed in the last 4 years. Is there are real direct link, between smaller government and solving this issue? In fact government has lost about 625,000 jobs also during this time. Have things gotten better because of this. Lets look at housing. What is to be done not only about the millions of foreclosures in recent years, but the market impact of those who already own homes? The free market principle, is that millions of people are potentially in negative equity, owing more than their homes are worth. Is it just tough shit for them, and good luck for banks, or would government actions help to give these people, more equity value, that could then be circulated through the economy?

It's my opinion, these people, seem to believe in vague theories that are not nescessarily true. Lower taxes create more jobs? The wealthy could easily invest their money in commodities, foreign markets, or CDO's (credit default swaps). I could go right down the line, with everything the tea party movement is against, and ask specifically how would this help our current situation?

I also believe that that the movement's disatisfaction has been fueled by certain segments promoting fear, for personal gain. Fear in general is a destructive, rather than constructive force. Sure the deficit has risks, but what are the risks of letting unemployment benfits expire for five million people, in a short period of time? By the way, aren't free roads, socialism? I see that term "socialism", as another vague fear term thrown about. For an example, in the comments of a recent news article, about the Soivet Union, some people were trying to say that Obama was close in philososphy to Joseph Stalin; who was directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions of his own citizens. That type of illogical thinking is based entirely on fear, and has no real substance. Obama even pardoned a couple of his thanksgiving turkeys. Letting taxes cuts expire, for those making over $250,000 a year is a lot different than killing 20-40 million people.

I'm willing to listen. Tell me how any one tea party goals, visions, etc, will affect today's real issues?