|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tea Party Questions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm wondering if there are any conservatives/tea party people on the forum that can have an adult discussion about the tea party's position on various issues.
I've noticed some rather jarring conflicts in what I'm hearing from candidates and the crowd. I literally can't understand where they stand and why they take that position. I've tried having this conversation before but all I seem to get is Beck inspired rants about how "liberals" are evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread copied here from the Tea Party Questions thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Nuggin,
Nuggin writes: I'm wondering if there are any conservatives/tea party people on the forum that can have an adult discussion about the tea party's position on various issues. I consider myself to be a constitutional conservative. What do you want to discuss. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I'm wondering if there are any conservatives/tea party people on the forum that can have an adult discussion about the tea party's position on various issues. I consider myself conservative and am capable of having adult discussions... but I'm not so sure about you. Are we going to be seeing much of this same childish stuff from you that we have in the past?:
quote: quote: quote: Let me know ahead of time, mkay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Are we going to be seeing much of this same childish stuff from you that we have in the past?: Well that depends. I'm under the impression that the Tea Party and the Christian Coalition are two different (maybe overlapping) groups within the Republican Party. None of my questions are directly related to religion, but if we discover that only "good Christians" can be Tea Partiers and that "atheist liberals" are responsible for all the problems in society, then yes, the conversation with inevitably turn to whether or not religion is a valid excuse to blame all of things you don't like in the world on a group of people who aren't your brand of faerie tale. Here's what I want to address about the Tea Party. - The Tea Party is anti-Obamacare. One of their loudest objections was "death panels".- The same Tea Party is cheering the death of an uninsured man at the debates. - The Tea Party claims to be pro-troops. - The Tea Party booed a Marine who admitted he was gay and has served honorably. - The Tea Party solution is to "re-instate don't ask/don't tell" and their reasoning behind this is "it's nobody's business". However, the CURRENT system is "nobody's business" and re-instating "don't ask/don't tell" is making it the Army's business if they catch you. - The Tea Party claims to be a "grass roots" organization, but one of their criticisms of Obama is that he was a "community leader" - The Tea Party claims to be for the little guy, but they are complaining that the unemployeeds, the working poor and people in life long comas don't pay enough in taxes. - The Tea Party thinks they pay too much in taxes so they fight policies that would cut their taxes. - The Tea Party is mad about the Wall Street bailout so they want to cut regulations so that the exact same problem can happen again. - The Tea Party hates the EPA. Is it that they hate the Environment or the idea of Protecting it? Frankly, it seems to me that there is one things that answers all of this disparity. It looks like the Tea Party doesn't have the first idea WHY they believe what they believe. It looks like the Tea Party has been fed their belief system by people higher up who have a very different agenda than what the Tea Party rank and file seem to think they are fighting for. Can you provide the REAL thinking behind any of the above? I mean aside from the obvious stuff like "Jesus hates fags" or "Stupid Niggers have Ruined America". I want to have someone explain the 'logic' behind some of these positions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I want to have someone explain the 'logic' behind some of these positions. Well, honestly, I think you're right where you said this:
quote: From the supposed TP's I've talked to, they don't arrive at these position through logic. They just liked them after they heard them and then continue to spread them.
quote: Who are the "higher ups" and what is their agenda? Most of the TP spreadings I have seen have come from other TP'ers... I haven't found the ultimate source yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I want to have someone explain the 'logic' behind some of these positions.
That makes it seem as if you want a detailed and itemized explanation of the contents of the empty set. I do hope that some sociologists are carefully studying the tea party. My impression is that this is an example of group psychology (or mob psychology) in action.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Who are the "higher ups" and what is their agenda? Most of the TP spreadings I have seen have come from other TP'ers... I haven't found the ultimate source yet. A lot of the Tea Party rhetoric can be traced back to the Koch brothers - who funded and founded the Tea Party or to FoxNews/Murdoch. Given that these three individuals are billionaires, and one of the Tea Parties big thing is how unfair it is to tax billionaires at all, I think there's your first thread to "agenda" right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Here's what I want to address about the Tea Party. From my experience, TP's are nullifiers. They don't care what the enemy (aka Democrats) presents, they are against it. Obama's last address to Congress demonstrated that Republicans will boo their own plans if Obama presents them in a speech. I remember watching a video taken right after the last presidential election where a man got up on stage at a TP rally and asked how many people earned less than $200,000. The majority of the crowd cheered. He then asked if they wanted a tax cut. They cheered even louder. He then told them that Obama had just given them a tax cut. They booed. Bill Maher certainly is not right about everything, but he did say something on Jay Leno the other night which rings of truth. Paraphrasing, Republicans (and TPer's) would shoot themselves in the face if Obama told them they had a nice smile. TPer's have argued themselves into irrelevance by being against the very things they claim to be for just because it is presented by Democrats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1450 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined:
|
The same Tea Party is cheering the death of an uninsured man at the debates. I don't think this particular accusation is fair to the Tea Party. To my ear, the cheering came from at most 3 people in that audience, and I don't think even those 3 people were "cheering the death of an uninsured man", but instead were cheering the concept of personal responsibility, even to extreme cases. My guess is, they (and many TPers), think that a world with more personal responsibility and less social welfare would be a world where things generally run better, with less suffering and fewer unnecessary deaths, for instance. I don't think they are actually happy about anone's death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
I watched a forum with some guys (back in 2009 I think) that started to get into the Tea Party(TP). Their idea was more or less to prosecute bankers and who frauded and don't bail banks. I was under the impression that they were pretty libertarians (for legalization of drug for example). They joined the TP to have some avenue to protest and since some other TPers also opposed the banks bailout at the time, it didn't seem such a bad idea. The problem is that their voice got drowned out by social conservatives and now they pretty much left the movement and are disgusted by it.
I don't really have evidence but I think that what happened is that lots of people were unhappy with the banks, joined the TP and since a number of conservatives were also against bank bailouts (gov intervention), they also joined in. Some republicans took advantage of it and took the TP under their wing, now the protest against the financial system (that were the first reason many joined the TP in the first place) has been forgotten and replaced with the usual party lines. Edited by Son, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
I don't think this particular accusation is fair to the Tea Party. To my ear, the cheering came from at most 3 people in that audience, and I don't think even those 3 people were "cheering the death of an uninsured man", but instead were cheering the concept of personal responsibility, even to extreme cases. My guess is, they (and many TPers), think that a world with more personal responsibility and less social welfare would be a world where things generally run better, with less suffering and fewer unnecessary deaths, for instance. I don't think they are actually happy about anone's death. The problem is that their version of "personal responsibility" is _other person's_ responsibility. If you take an average tea partier and have their child get sick, they are going to take that child to the emergency room. They are going to run up a huge bill that they can't cover. They are then going to either declare bankruptcy or complain about how the health care system is "unfair" to the little guy. Here's a terrific example of Tea Party "responsibility".
Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 — 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in. He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care, said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. The benefits session, held behind closed doors, drew about 250 freshman members, staffers and family members to the Capitol Visitors Center auditorium late Monday morning,. Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap, added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris’s request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine. Read more: Care2 is the world's largest social network for good, a community of over 40 million people standing together, starting petitions and sharing stories that inspire action.
This candidate ran opposing Obamacare, criticizing this exact policy, then when he was facing a month without health care he bitches that he doesn't have the option he ran AGAINST. From my perspective, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Tea Party. They literally are opposing things they want and complaining when they don't get them. They cheer the death of a man who can't afford insurance and bitch when they themselves aren't covered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
To my ear, the cheering came from at most 3 people in that audience, and I don't think even those 3 people were "cheering the death of an uninsured man", but instead were cheering the concept of personal responsibility, even to extreme cases. And the guys who booed the gay solder were, what? Voicing their disapproval of the internet technologies that have so de-emphasized real, face-to-face human contact? Get a grip on your shit, dude. Ron Paul was asked if people should die as a result of contracting extremely unlikely but serious illnesses when its in our collective power to save them, and the crowd answered for him: yes. That happened. As much as you'd like to spin it otherwise, that's how it went down in front of millions - well, ok, thousands - of American viewers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Can you provide the REAL thinking behind any of the above? Sure. The Tea Party is anti-Obama. They hate him passionately. Primary in their mind is giving a Laurel and Hardy welcome to "getting their country back". Second, they are also generally the wing-nut extremist Republicans. I believe the above is enough to predict the TPers position on most things. Let's apply these principles to your questions.
- The Tea Party is anti-Obamacare. One of their loudest objections was "death panels". - The same Tea Party is cheering the death of an uninsured man at the debates. The death panels stuff is just political theater. Only a few idiots ever believed that Obama's health care plan involved death panels. But hating Obama means hating Obama-care no matter what it actually does for them or the country. As for hating the uninsured, that's normal wing-nut stuff.
The Tea Party claims to be pro-troops. - The Tea Party booed a Marine who admitted he was gay and has served honorably. Everybody is pro-troops. But booing gays is what wing-nut haters (and a surprising number of supposed liberals) do. Hate beats love.
The Tea Party hates the EPA. Is it that they hate the Environment or the idea of Protecting it? Most all Republicans hate the EPA with slightly less vigor than they hate ACLU. But wing-nuts think a federal agency policing clean air and water infringes their states rights to allow corporations to pee in TPers own corn flakes. I don't see any inconsistency in the Tea Party position here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
-TPers booed when they heard Obama gave them a tax cut.
-TPers booed when Obama proposed a plan that was written by a TPer. -TPers cheered to let a man die because he doesn't have health insurance. -TPers booed at a gay soldier who risked his life for his country. Just some examples I'd like to point out. I am still convinced the TP is racist at its core. It's latent racism. It's micro-aggressionism disguised as politics. And it is the reason why it's attracted all the bigots in this country. For once in a very long time, you can be openly bigoted and it's perfectly ok.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024