Politics is a funny thing, isn't it?

As you may have gathered from previous posts, I don't harbor much like for the Tea Party.

So, surprisingly enough, I am immensely pleased that O'Donnell won the primary in Delaware. Because she just handed the state, and likely the senate, to the Democrats.

So... go Tea Party. Never thought I'd say that.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:36, Wed 15 Sept 2010.

I hereby make a prediction; some couple years from now (whenever the World Trade Center starts getting built, or whatever will replace it), there will be a sense of "public outrage" projected by the Media at the inclusion of an Islamic prayer room for Muslim employees, for the purposes of increasing the Media's Ad revenue.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:28, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

That's because the Tea Party doesn't have their own media outlet (and also likely because of personal experiences and biases on your part). Democrats tend to think Republicans are stupid, and vice versa - mostly because of exposure and a high correlation between 'stupid' and 'loud'.

If it helps at all, I consider myself more closely aligned with the Tea Party than with any other currently active political party.

And part of this is specifically because the Tea Party represents a democracy of ideas you simply don't see anywhere else. If you look at the Republicans, there is a requirement that they toe certain core values. With the Dems, there's a wider space for deviation, but it's still basically the same story. They each cater to their core - and to no one else. With Tea Party, there's no central authority to say 'no, you will not debate, you will not run as a candidate'. Anyone can put their name on the handbill, whether they're pro-Muslim, anti-tax, pro-Choice, pro-Gun candidates, or just plum crazy. Tea Party candidates, at least for the time being, are chosen based on criteria other than the letter behind their name.

It is also a strong lash-back against Republican neo-conservatives, especially strong, overarching government, and specifically against figures like Bush and Cheney. I'd be surprised if anyone here would prefer the Republican party continue fielding candidates like Bush or Cheney for office.

I highly suspect you find yourself closely aligned with the idea of the Tea Party, rather than with what they actually believe.  You know, that whole "small guy standing up against the big guy".

Only it's more like "really stupid guy convincing everybody else to burn the local library down" in reality.

There's certainly no Democracy of Ideas; they're the same ideas that have been going around for a hundred years, some others for thousands of years.

1. That America was founded as a Christian Nation, in the sense that would allow the abolishment of State-Church separation for Christian religions.

2. That Glen Beck is the most intelligent man in America.

These obviously aren't the only beliefs, but these are certainly the only ones I've been hearing lately coming from the messages on Facebook from my friends who are Tea-Partiers.

Just recently I got a vid-post talking about how this "great man" was giving tours at D.C. on the "real America".  It linked to such an offensive thing; some guy giving lectures on buildings constructed decades or more after the death of certain presidents, using them as proof of the founding father's intentions for Christianity to be the foundation of Government.

And pardon my personal experiences towards truth and my biases towards stupidity, but they do tend to help me make an accurate judgment of the stupidity of such statements, whether one considers it biased or not.

Moreso, the people who repeat these statements are being stupid, but the people who start these misconceptions are malevolently cunning and do not seek the well-being of the country or the people who believe their lies.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:22, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

I'm not sure why you can in the same post say your primary source of information are your friends and facebook, and claim any sort of position of making an 'accurate judgment'.

My friends who are Tea Partiers are extremely anti-Bush, strongly anti-Obama, but overall anti-Government Meddling. They are more likely to follow Stephen Colbert than Glen Beck. They follow Ron Paul, but hate Sarah Palin.

And that's the point. You can't act as though your friends are the majority of Tea Partiers, nor can I act like mine are. They both have their beliefs, and they compete for attention using similar channels. In the end, what they believe will be tested by normal people like everyone else on this forum. Beliefs which are inconsistent or stupid will (in theory) fail, and those which are more inspirational, interesting or maybe just right will succeed.

On the more political tack, I disagree with the Democratic party, but I *strongly* disagree with where the Republican party is going. The Tea Party movement will, if nothing else, cause them pause. Right now they're trying to capture that energy of the Tea party and redirect it back in, but that's foolish, 20th century thinking. The Tea party isn't organized like that. There are no leaders to capture. Until the Reps actually change their IDEAS, they'll never capture the Tea party. And if they capture the ideas of the Tea Party - less government, less interference, more freedom, more individual rights - I think everyone wins.

And if they capture the ideas of the Tea Party - less government, less interference, more freedom, more individual rights - I think everyone wins.

I think you're being rather over optimistic here. The Tea Party is no different than the Republican party. The whole movement is being bankrolled by the Koch brothers. If the Tea Party does win, the only that'll change will be that a different group of billionaires get all the contracts and government money. I guarantee you that you will not see a smaller government or more freedom.

Keep in mind that Koch industries is the only private corporation which is more beuracratic and paranoid than the Federal Government. BUt I doubt everyone calling themselves Tea Party are financed by the same people. On the other hand leadership has emerged, and will continue to emerge, simply because that's how humans work. some Tea Party groups may not like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, but they are certainly the acknowledged leaders of the movement on a national scale.

The bigger question is how things will stabilize out of this- the whole rise of the tea party has destabilized the Republican party, with the potential for gains in Reform and Libertarian parties as well as the possibility of the Tea Party actually becoming a real political party.

With history as a guide there is a good chance that once the Republicans are gone the Democrats have a 50/50 chance of following, not being able to campaign as the 'lesser evil' which is pretty much the current message. Where things go from there is hard to say...

Three facts put heavy doubt on them actually knowing what the Tea Party movement is, also.

1. They "follow" Stephen Colbert rather than Glen Beck?  Stephen Colbert is an amalgamation parody of Fox News Pundits, including Glen Beck.  The distinction is, truly, a matter of your friends mistaking Stephen Colbert's act to be genuine and thinking Glen Beck's the parody, which really doesn't help your argument against my opinion.

2. Ron Paul is against the actual Tea Party movement, you know, the one that started in 2008 to stop Health Care reform.  The Ron Paul Movement started in at least 1988, when he first started running for President, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party.

3. Most of the people in the Tea Party movement, right up until the end, supported George Bush; people I knew said they loved George Bush and anybody who didn't support the president was unpatriotic are now denying they ever liked him.

Regardless of whether your friends supported him, this is the average mindset of the people I meet in daily life who preach these positions.
--------

I would not say "well, not all Nazis are bad" just because some well-meaning people who share contrary views to the Nazis nevertheless insist on calling themselves Nazis.

I know the history of the Tea Party Movement, I am eveloped heavily in Tea Party culture, both in radio and my every-day life, my Business English teacher started off her first class with a completely unrelated tangent about how stupid she thinks Socialism is.

If your friends wish to call themselves members of a group which on the whole is a collection of people who basically parrot whatever their Media-Pastors spoonfeed them, I'm not going to give them special treatment in judgment.  They don't have to assume the title of Village Idiot.

I don't call myself Catholic and get all uppity when people say I consider someone who protects Child Molesters from prosecution as sacred because "oh, I don't believe in all that".

They could more properly call themselves Libertarians, or heck, part of the Ron Paul movement like all of the other people who are part of the Ron Paul movement and think the exact same things they do.
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:44, Tue 21 Sept 2010.

Acknowledged by who? Fox news? Consider the sources. It's strange that Ron Paul, who is closer to the stated Tea party goals, and was put forward as the first Tea Party candidate gets less press time than Glenn Beck - but Ron Paul doesn't work at a TV station which serves as a political tool either.



With all due respect, I don't think you know a whit about my friends - or what they know about Colbert. Colbert as a character is part of a larger political character. Granted, Colbert himself (the actor) is moderate democrat. But that's why they're only 'more likely to', not actually 'follow' :)





http://www.digitalmeetingcente...he-tea-party/851883/




Source please.

Glenn Beck specifically said in an interview that he is not, and does not want to be, a Tea Party leader and is not properly considered a leader of that party.

http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...dition1.4bf50f3.html

No, Ron Paul is not the tea party leader, or even a tea party leader, he is opposed by the tea party. Which *he* acknowledges is being led by Palin and Beck.

That's my understanding to some extent.  Both Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are "proud" (that's the quote in the article you posted) that they helped inspire people who became Tea Partiers, but neither is any kind of leader or head of one.  Paul is a libertarian, and Beck is a conservative talk show host.  The Tea Parties have a variety of types and memberships with some overriding ideologies in common but no cohesive center, which is why the Republican Party wants to solidify them as Republicans.  However, that may mean the Republican party itself has to get back to its conservative roots.  It's an interesting dynamic in the conservative movement.

I don't know much about what Ron Paul is doing, but despite what Glenn Beck says he considers himself to be, he did hold a Rally outside the Lincoln Memorial that drew 87,000+ supporters, mostly Tea Partiers.

In so much as Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Glenn Beck is a leader of this movement.  He draws the crowds, makes the speaches, and the people repeat what he says and carry out the actions he suggests.



Their cohesive center is one of Dominionism; they desire a Christian Government, with Christian Leaders, and Christian Law.  Their viewpoint is Reformist, but they speak as if it is Restorationist, and pray on people uninformed or misinformed about American History in order to weave this idea that what they want is what was.

And it was what once was, before we decided we decided we wanted Liberty. If we had wanted that, we'd now be part of the British Commonwealth.

Ironically if we had remained a part f teh Brittish Commonwealth we would probably be showing greater respect for plurality of religion than we do now.

Fair enough, I'm still not sure though whether you've said to the contrary that they'd be more likely to follow an amalgamation of all personalities spoken of than any one in particular, which I do not think can be any better than what I said.



http://www.digitalmeetingcenter.com/ron-pauls-shocking-message-to-the-tea-party/851883/</quote>

Right, but addressing the Tea Party or having a view on the Tea Party does not make you a member of the Tea Party, or I'd be part of the Tea Party.



I concede that this is an argument from personal experience, and is thus poor evidence and reasoning.

I'm sure if I had the time right now I could hunt down video-clips of senators or talk-show pundits expressing extreme devotion to Bush at one date, then in the other date calling him a "stealth liberal" or "not conservative enough" or "I knew he was a bad egg from the start".

I'm not the Daily Show, though, and regardless my argument isn't based on those anyways, and thus isn't a very good one for me to make.

None of your claims are supported by the article you included. Some of your refuted claims have never been made by anyone prior (for instance, that Ron Paul is a tea party leader. He is not, nor is he a Libertarian party member - but he embraces the Tea Party and Libertarian ideas, has been put forward as candidates for both (against his wishes), and serves as inspiration for members of both parties.

Is Glenn Beck a Tea Party leader? He is certainly a leader, and he does seem to be claiming followers in the Tea Party (Ron Paul is the same, but has made it absolutely clear he will not be a Tea Party member - he's staying on the Republican ticket. I don't believe Beck has made any such loyalties clear.) However, I don't feel comfortable saying that he's a tea party leader insofar that it implies some sort of set Tea Party organization, cohesive beliefs, some sembelance of internal agreement, and a majority support - none of which is the case. It would be like saying the guy who just set up a church down the street and is packing it in every Sunday is now a 'Christian leader'.

No, it would be more like saying a guy who puts on a show called the 700 club with millions of viewers who send in donations is a Christian Leader.
It isn't a formal appointed kind of leadership, but if people are following then whoever they are following is the leader.

There are a very large number of political parties in the US, yet only three parties and an independant mange to have federal representation.  As an Australian I've got to ask, how does this happen?  How have two parties managed to almost completely dominate your federal political system?

Probably because there are only two issues worth discussing......either for, or against.

Just kidding. :)

I believe it's related to how the electoral system here works. It's very all-or-nothing, as opposed to the Australian and British systems. Because it's all-or-nothing, it encourages people to pool their resources and get something they can tolerate, rather than push for something they specifically - it reduces diversity in the electorate.

Tycho explained this very well a while ago, so overall I would defer to him.

Last year I joined the TEA Party here in southeast Texas. We have members of all types.. Reps, Dems, all colors, and alot of religions.  Wanna know it's about here.  Money, it's all about money.  Nothing else..  We are tired of paying taxes to a government who waste our hard earned money and gets nothing done.

I like Glenn Beck because he uses people's own words against them.  He doesn't take small clips and turn them out of context like EVERY OTHER NEWS PROGRAM.  No, he puts them out the same way the person who said them did.  I don't like Glenn Beck because he's a mormon, who(mormons) believe anyone who's not mormon is going to hell.  I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  They are hilarious, but I go to them for laughs, not political views.

I don't agree with everything my fellow TEA Partiers want, but what we all agree upon is that our government if continued to be ran the same way will not get any better.  I live in Texas, but hate the Bush family, but I'm also smart enough to know that while things got bad under his admin. it got worse under his admin once dems. took over congress.

Here's something interesting that in some part relates to the Koran burning conversation...

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...lit%28gw040073%29%29

Was looking up Guy Fawkes day and I came across that; apparently that whole Guy Fawkes thing was about group of extremists trying to plant explosives in parliament and asassinate the non-catholic members.

Yeah, Guy Fawkes was not actually a great guy to emulate :P Basically when England was becoming aggressively anti-Catholic, some Catholics thought the best way to stop that was to blow up parliament. Of course, whether he succeeded or failed, it would not have helped his cause, and it would not have been a good thing to do.

This is steeped in history, going back to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  Originally, the parties broke off from two theories: 1) that the federal government should have more power, or 2) that the states should retain their sovereignty and the federal government's power should be limited.  Our government is based on a collective of sovereign powers (states) that have voluntarily ceded certain amounts of their sovereignty to be a part of a federal government (the United States).

Even though the issues have splintered time and again, it all typically comes back to these two ideas.  Now, however, those who want more power with the federal government (democrats) have also adopted other causes, primarily liberalism and (to some extent) socialistic ideals.  Meanwhile, the other party (republicans) want the federal government to remain small and the power to remain for local governments to make decisions instead of on a giant federal level.  They have also adopted causes, such as limited taxation (which effectively also limits local governmental power), conservative causes, and the support of capitalism and a free market.

Add the electoral system in a republic to this and you have a strong foundation for a two party system.  Third parties sometimes make their way in, but these two parties have espoused enough of the ideals that tend to go together that the third parties can't usually make any real headway.

Of course, half of the reason for the rise of Libertarians, the Tea Party, and perhaps the Green Party, is that the Dems and Reps have become, increasingly, two sides of the same coin. The Republicans say they will shrink government, but when they get into office, they make it bigger. Then the Democrats get into office and do exactly what they promised, and make it bigger again.