The other thread was reaching it's limit, so I'm opening this one to make room.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:05, Mon 27 Sept 2010.

Anybody miss Richard Nixon?

Nope.

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.or...rdering-GLBTQ-people

Once again, I'm at a loss for words.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:45, Thu 09 Sept 2010.

The person Randvall was talking to was clearly a bigot but it could well be that randvall himself was momentarilly clueless and didn't catch the reference.

What's the Q stand for? I've never seen that in the Acronym before.

At a guess queer. Though that might seem redundant with Gay Lesbian Bisexual transgendered already covered...

Keep in mind there's no such thing as a "Tea Party President" or "Tea Party Representative."  It's a movement with many flavors and anyone can start up a tea party and claim to be president, no matter how stupid or biased they are.

For example, a person can claim to be a "President of the Gay Alliance," but that doesn't mean they actually speak on behalf of gays or are even part of any nationally recognized group of homosexuals.

This underscores the need to actually have one collective official group, rather than a million groups around the nation who can say whatever they want and have it attributed to "Tea Partiers."

Anybody can call themselves president of the Nazi party doesn't mean that somewhere, somehow the really nice Nazis are being drowned out by imitators.

It seems as if only stupid or biased people count themselves as members from all I've seen.

Except the leaders, they seem to be very smart; they have great practical knowledge of psychology, anyways.

Is it wrong to assume something about the message of a movement based on the sorts of people that movement attracts?

Just for a point of contrast- hypothetically anyone can call themselves an Imam, and Islam is a somewhat reviled and misunderstood group in the US. Yes moderate Imam's still manage to get into teh occasional news program.
Anyone can call themselves the leader of a tea party movement, they claim to be misunderstood and portrayed negatively, yet somehow the moderate tea partiers never seem to make the news or any media- the closest anyone gets is those complaining about how misunderstood tehy are without actually decrying the people who were recorded making them seem that way.
If the tea parties are really misunderstod where are the more moderate platforms from the more moderate tea partiers?

Although I will look into any "Moderate Tea Party" link that you can provide, if there are any, since I'm not going to criticize their inability to get on the big news; I have a hankering of how that sort of Media works.

My criticism would be, however, that they continue to use such a name despite it being both a fresh concept and having such negative connotations.

The name isn't Sacred, it just doesn't make sense to cling to it if your ideas would otherwise seem legitimate and reasonable.

Well it does have the advantage of numbrs and if you somehow believed you might be able to organize them into a cohesive group behind your ideas, possibly believing the hype about how misrepresented the average tea partier is...
this is a group that started out as largely disaffected Republicans who believed they were not being represented by the Republican party so the whole 'you aren't representing us' claim is almost a part of the sub culture.