Tea party equals far right...screw the moderate gop...conservatives?

I am just wrapping myself around the evolving definition of "tea partiers"..last I knew they appeared to be united by discontent, not ideology..but now it is GOP gone rouge?

Tim Pawley, Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin are the original backers of Hoffman...are they the ad hoc leaders of the tea party? Not to dis Fox News.

Just curious...

And "Club for Growth" which is the biggest funder of Hoffman..The author of the RINO lists..The group that Arlen Spector said was the biggest reason he left the GOP.

It seems like a culmination of all those GOP who thought to themselves..we got our butt kicked in the last election NOT because we were out of touch with the mainstream, but because we were not far enough to the right!

The same thinking that led tea baggers to view the DC Fire department as liberal commies for estimating the tea bag march as only 60K or so folks as opposed to the 2 million they claim.

I am all for third parties, even far right...let the people choose..but maybe it is just me...there seems to be a reality disconnect going on amongst tea baggers about their membership numbers and whether they actually are resonating with the public at large..

I want a multi-party system. I don't think the Democrats will do well with a permanent majority..
Strangely I find myself agreeing with Newt Gingrich concerning the situation....

Said the former speaker of the GOP: "This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we'll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama's re-election."

Why is it the strongest promoters of this "tea-baggers are not republicans" sound exactly like Glenn Beck just a couple of hours ago? Forget it, you don't need to tell me the answer I already know. This idea is nothing more than trying to mold conservatism without the George Bush connection. It is just so transparent.

I know you will all probably flame me for being partisan, but that is not why I have a problem with this. It does not mean that your platform is completely wrong and does not mean that I support everything democrats are doing. It just looks so hypocritical that one of these scalps was not Bush or Cheney. They are the ones that caused the rift in this party.

What in the world makes you so sure that employers won't move any more jobs offshore? Do you have evidence to back that up? That's one HELL of an assumption to make - because from what I understand, seeing a national unemployment average of 20-30% is entirely possible!

We could always regulate transnationals so that they can't move jobs offshore.

Originally posted by Hal9000
It just looks so hypocritical that one of these scalps was not Bush or Cheney. They are the ones that caused the rift in this party.

It took awhile for enough people to finally wake up to what's been going on and what the government has been doing. That's no reason to discount the tea parties or the people who support them, and doesn't make them hypocritical.

Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by Janky Red

Spoken like a true authority on all things authoritarian, practicing your Libefuast!

You really have no idea what you are saying (or trying to say), do you?

Implied trust is social theory which is based upon a populations trust in government, citizens or industry alike, it is an unspoken agreement that creates the basic fabric of trust between people of all stations.

You expect the cops to come when you call them
You expect that your food has not been poisoned
You expect that people will drive going the right way on the freeway
and
You expect that the financial institutions will not systematically destroy the financial system
The above is implied trust, it should be a given, the way non sociopathic people expect things to operate under normal circumstances.

NO!. It is not.

It is earned trust!

Do you just dial some random number and expect police or the FD to show up? Stop at any "vendor" and expect to be fed safely? Enter a street without looking at the directional and control signs and expect to proceed safely?

The examples you give are of EARNED trust: a system proven reliable in the past will continue to be so in the future.

You PRESUME the existence of a system of altruisitc benevolence, in which everyone reliant thereupon is entitlied to what? "Equal protection?"

Last I checked, that didn't matter on wealth, or affiliation or even natural v. artificial v. legal distinctions. You're "equal" or you're not.

When something can potentially impact the public, its money, health, security and especially the Implied Trust of Societies systems, I think it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation.

OK.

My ancestors were born in Africa. We do not have the same property, work or security rights as the majority. We believe that we should have as much right to property, work, and security as the people born in this country. They are in the majority. My requests will definitely impact the "public money, health, security."

So, you insist " it is governments role to side with the greater population thru legislation" that we should not get equal rights with the majority.

How pathetic.

deny ignorance

jw

YES it is, do be a fool for arguments sake,

YOU get on an airplane - not knowing the pilots, not seeing the maintenance logs,
not inspecting the craft, not confirming the flight conditions on FAA Doppler...
So don't tell me you met the pilot, inspected the tires and the like to the point where your trust was EARNED. YOU get on an airplane because you EXPECT to be safe, you trust that your money has purchased what you EXPECT, NOT a death trap captained by a drunken PE teacher. Because there are not planes falling out of the sky, the IMPLIcation is that you will likely be safe. Implied on a societal level means something is not spoken, actively sought out or specifically agreed upon.

Without implied TRUST, society ceases to function because the mundane tasks become risky and distrust takes hold. Given the state of things I would think that you and I could agree that basic social contract has been violated in many ways, by many entities in a consistent fashion.

As far as the rest (although I am not completely sure what your spouting off about)...

You're equal or your not???

In what regards? That is a blanket statement that does not apply to all considerations EQUALLY.

If you are trying to get me to say that I think a CORPORATION and an individual should NOT be equal in the eyes of the law I say; YES - I believe an individual should be afforded more freedom and less restriction then a corporation. However I believe each individual that makes up any corporation should be afforded the same rights as any other individual.

I make the distinction between a living creature and an artificial construct of man, they are not equal, one does not BREATH.

And YES, again I believe the primary role of government is to watch out for the interests of the PEOPLE of the country.

you wanna know what my biggest beef is with righties?

You only let yourselves see one side of the dysfunction in this country. You often forget
that the problems and people in government are put in place with CORPORATE MONEY.
Government is not the chicken it is the egg, but I did not see any signs that expressed
direct anger at the chicken.

The private sector undermines the public trust by buying their own agenda with the politicians they fund. Yet, you all seem to believe the way to counter this criminal behavior is by freeing up the restrictions on future behavior. This is the OPPOSITE of what most righties think should be done with individuals who misbehave. I mean do you think you can reduce the criminal behavior of a man by letting him do as he pleases?

????


Then why on Earth do you guys want to apply this same logic to entities that erode our system of government at every turn?

If you guys all woke up to this I would be very supportive, but since this is ingrained and counter intuitive I cannot support such a fundamentally flawed outlook.




[edit on 2-11-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Hal9000
It just looks so hypocritical that one of these scalps was not Bush or Cheney. They are the ones that caused the rift in this party.

It took awhile for enough people to finally wake up to what's been going on and what the government has been doing. That's no reason to discount the tea parties or the people who support them, and doesn't make them hypocritical.

If you guys seemed to give half a damn or showed the same displeasure for the companies that undermine our government consistently, I think you would find more support. I have seen plenty of denial which makes me think many have forgotten who
robbed our economy blind, pre bailout, TARP....
IT is my impression that the way to treat and reform corporate robbers is to lift restrictions on their future behavior.

FREE MARKETS!!!

Would you suggest that the best way to reform a common criminal is to lift restrictions and provide further freedom?

This is a very fundamental problem for TP - it is a VERY glaring thing to overlook with a straight face.

Originally posted by Janky Red
If you guys seemed to give half a damn or showed the same displeasure for the companies that undermine our government consistently, I think you would find more support.

You mean like all the outrage over all the bailouts? When people were (and still are) angry that companies were being given taxpayer money to prop them up and allow them to hand out 6-figure bonuses instead of being allowed to recover or fail on their own? That kind of displeasure?

Personally, I think if people would actually listen to what it is that those who have attended or supported the tea parties have said they stand for (repeatedly in some cases) and what it is they want there would be more support. Instead they get MSNBC/CNN talking points and insults, neither of which are conducive to learning or understanding.

EDIT: I hadn't read your next post after the one I quoted here until after posting. If by companies undermining the government you were talking about them using lobbyists and pretty much buying politicians, then I highly suggest you do some more reading about the tea parties. That kind of stuff is a huge part of the problem and is, I believe, directly responsible for politicians ignoring we the people and doing what the companies want instead. And yes, those who attended and/or support the tea parties are pretty ticked off about that as well.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Hal9000
Unlike the OP, you sound like someone that is reasonable and able to discuss this without going off the deep end.

Thank you.

You may want it to appear that way, but it is a point that if you really want this movement to be successful will have to overcome. I personally don't think that is possible, but the general public is easier to convince than I will be able to.

I have personally seen people finally wake up. I have seen all the people here who were waking up during Bush's second term and realizing that what was going on wasn't even in the same vicinity as right. It may have been more helpful if everyone had woken up a decade ago, but I'm not going to fault them for not being as aware of what has been going on as they should have been as soon as I wish they had.

Personally I didn't wake up and start paying attention until the elections in 2000, mostly because of my age. 2000 was the first time I was eligible to vote, before then I didn't really give two hoots about politics because as far as I could tell no matter who was sitting in the White House it didn't effect me. I was a teenager then and that's my only excuse. Perhaps it's the fact I only relatively recently started paying attention that others just starting to wake up doesn't really affect my opinion of them. At one point in the past everyone went through a time when they didn't pay attention to politics and didn't really care. I just can't look down on someone for something I've done myself.

This is a good canvas to start from, but as Janky is pointing out, if you are against the bailouts then you should also be against all corporate control in Washington. You would have also been against the no bid contracts handed out to corporations in the previous administration after misleading us into the Iraq war.

I personally was. There were a lot of things that happened during Bush's reign that I vehemently opposed both here and in real life. This is why it just amuses me whenever someone tries to accuse me of just hating Obama when in reality I don't hate him I just disapprove and dislike him and Bush equally just like hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of other people do.

This is why it is hypocritical to all of a sudden become so anti-government NOW. It is only when a democrat becomes president that you start this movement. Others may jump onto this movement, but some of us see through the hypocrisy.

I didn't start this movement, but I saw the beginnings of it years ago. No one really paid attention but there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who were extremely vocal about their disapproval of Bush. Now those same people are being extremely vocal about their disapproval of Obama and are called hypocritical for their trouble.

It amazes me really. The same people who argued and debated right alongside me against the messes Bush was making are now calling me a hypocrite for doing the same with Obama. (Note that I'm not talking specifically about you there.) If anyone is hypocritical here it's the people who spoke out against Bush but give Obama a pass on everything he does.

Are there some who are solely against Obama? I'm sure there are and I won't try to deny the possibility. Does that mean that everyone is or that they're all just hypocritical? Not even a little bit. Calling everyone a hypocrite is a massive over-generalization that fails to take into account the majority of this movement who are actually being consistent.

Originally posted by Jenna
I have personally seen people finally wake up. I have seen all the people here who were waking up during Bush's second term and realizing that what was going on wasn't even in the same vicinity as right. It may have been more helpful if everyone had woken up a decade ago, but I'm not going to fault them for not being as aware of what has been going on as they should have been as soon as I wish they had.

I don't fault these people either. It is the people that criticized those of us that opposed the war that I have a problem with. Not that this is directed at you, but this is something each person should ask themselves. If they were against the anti-war protest movement, how do you expect any support for your own?

It amazes me really. The same people who argued and debated right alongside me against the messes Bush was making are now calling me a hypocrite for doing the same with Obama. (Note that I'm not talking specifically about you there.) If anyone is hypocritical here it's the people who spoke out against Bush but give Obama a pass on everything he does.

Are there some who are solely against Obama? I'm sure there are and I won't try to deny the possibility. Does that mean that everyone is or that they're all just hypocritical? Not even a little bit. Calling everyone a hypocrite is a massive over-generalization that fails to take into account the majority of this movement who are actually being consistent.

None of us are calling you a hypocrite directly, because frankly I don't recall. It is the general impression that the TPM gives that those inside of it can't see. If any of you at least acknowledged this appearance of hypocrisy that would be a step in the right direction. To expect everyone to accept you with open arms is not going to happen.

I would like to see any of you say that the war was wrong and is more important to oppose than the bailouts because real lives were lost. Otherwise it appears that your money is more important than lives.