Tea Party Movement Scores Its First Political Scalp

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by DJM8507 I am a Republican and even I can see that the entire "Tea Party" movement is nothing more than a form of Alternative Reality Viral Marketing Campaign in order to bolster fund raising on the political side and viewership for Fox News as well as the sale of merchandise. This has more to do with Corporate competition for consumers and building an army that can lobby for their domination in the marketplace. [edit on 2-11-2009 by DJM8507] Thank you for speaking up!

Yes, thanks for speaking up, it shows that both the blind dems and repubs have no idea what this is about. Can you actually say that SCUZZ is not a dem in repub clothes. Explain to me again how Dem does not =Repub.

I will say it again Dem=Repub as Obama=Bush. You cannot break this theorom because it is FACT. Name me one law one party has eliminated of the other. NAME ONE. I will even give you a 50 year fracking window.

Answer the question! Otherwise stop your incessant whining on how this movement has anything to do with a supposed Faux news backing or Repub backing. Both Dems and Repubs are doing their best to destroy this movement, and asshats that keep spouting the drivel from both parties, are only making it a larger movement.

GOOD DAY

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by jdub297

 

When people making less than 30,000 a year are marching to support tax cuts for people making more than a million, something is wrong.

Not true at all. Those 30,000 could be employees of those making more than a million and realize that implementing tax cuts = keeping their jobs. Raising taxes means those making millions will find other ways to make up the loss from the tax increase, say by cutting jobs in the U.S. and offshoring them to cheaper countries.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Originally posted by DJM8507 I am a Republican and even I can see that the entire "Tea Party" movement is nothing more than a form of Alternative Reality Viral Marketing Campaign in order to bolster fund raising on the political side and viewership for Fox News as well as the sale of merchandise. This has more to do with Corporate competition for consumers and building an army that can lobby for their domination in the marketplace. [edit on 2-11-2009 by DJM8507] Thank you for speaking up!

Yes, thanks for speaking up, it shows that both the blind dems and repubs have no idea what this is about. Can you actually say that SCUZZ is not a dem in repub clothes. Explain to me again how Dem does not =Repub.

I will say it again Dem=Repub as Obama=Bush. You cannot break this theorom because it is FACT. Name me one law one party has eliminated of the other. NAME ONE. I will even give you a 50 year fracking window.

Answer the question! Otherwise stop your incessant whining on how this movement has anything to do with a supposed Faux news backing or Repub backing. Both Dems and Repubs are doing their best to destroy this movement, and asshats that keep spouting the drivel from both parties, are only making it a larger movement.

GOOD DAY

Hrmmm... I think I better understand where you are coming from now. I disagree, but I do better understand where you are coming from.

Let me explain something called "integration". Integration is the process where two opposing views are integrated through a pendulum swing between the opposites.

As the American pulse swings liberal... liberal laws are passed, but only through some sort of compromise with the opposition party and vice versa...

The parties were never meant to be opposed to eachother, just to stand for different ways of going about the same thing...

E Pluribus Unum


Don't forget that... at the end of the day we are ONE people and ONE country even though we have a two party system.

What you seem to advocate is that once another party gets the majority that they undo what the previous party did... that would be insane.

You have to integrate it, and move forward the direction the majority feels we should lean.... and this will fly until the masses swing the other direction.


For example.... let's say the dems pass a health care reform bill. When the Reps become the majority again down the road they will not dismantle it, but apply conservative values to it... that's just the way our country runs man.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/70283bb19bfaccbc.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


So, what you are saying is that you agree with me just using your interpretation as integration? Laws that are unconstitutional are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The federal government was never meant to run fracking anything except-

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

Now if your state wants to pass all these fracking laws and taxes-so be it.

But the TPM is all about the Federal Government's unlawful and illegal taking of powers they have no rights to.

The health care bills being enacted now, will MANDATE that everyone has to have health insurance. HOW THE HELL IS THAT ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. Admit it, our federal government no longer follow the very laws that they lay on us. Next they will mandate that everyone is required to buy a SUV from government motors. Once they do one thing, it leads to another.

SO FRACK THEM. I will not follow unlawful and illegal laws.

Peace.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by jdub297

 

When people making less than 30,000 a year are marching to support tax cuts for people making more than a million, something is wrong.

Not true at all. Those 30,000 could be employees of those making more than a million and realize that implementing tax cuts = keeping their jobs.

If I have to sell one of my seven ferraris I am going to move manufacturing to China!

We already tried trickle-down economics...reagononomics.
It failed. The rich got richer and the middle class got poor.

Give the wealthy more money and....the wealthy have more money.
Trickle-down theorey was a miserable failure.

Raising taxes means those making millions will find other ways to make up the loss from the tax increase, say by cutting jobs in the U.S. and offshoring them to cheaper countries.

Again...already happened...those jobs are already gone. A tax increase on the rich isn't going to move more jobs off shore any more than a tax break for the rich will bring them back.

Write every millionaire with employees off-shore a check for 100K...you think they will say ok now I can bring the manufacturing of my company back to the US? Or do you think they will pocket the 100k and it will be business as usual?

Trickle down has been tried and failed. Jobs have gone off shore steadily regardless of various tax policies over the past 20 years.

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."

reply to post by maybereal11


Never say 'never'. A tax increase on the job-creating class will have them scrambling for ways to make up the losses.

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!

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 maybereal11

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 think that low estimate is just as bad as the high estimate of the other side. The truth, like usual, is somewhere in the middle.

DC Metro rail ridership for that day tallied 437,624 riders, almost 250,000 above average. Bus fares were also up by about 100,000.

Hmmm, From the DC City Govt. Website:

In reference to the September 12th Tea Party event held in Washington DC, quoting a “DC Fire Department Report”, regardless of what any media reported, the size of the crowd of those who attended this event were never estimated by DC Fire & EMS. Any reports contrary to this are false. The DC Fire & EMS Department does not estimate crowd sizes. A Twitter posting estimating the crowd gathering at Freedom Plaza only as “large, possibly as many as 60 thousand” stated that it was an early estimation of that specific area (Freedom Plaza), not the number of participants in the event.

newsroom.dc.gov...

BTW, Freedom Plaza is a relatively small part of the area in question. If there was 60K there, you can do the math.... Fre edom Plaza Map




[edit on 2-11-2009 by pavil]

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.

reply to post by Janky Red
When you got your pathetic socialist script 2 weeks ago, did you think you'd just get a green light to start posting crap?

You refuse to answer specific questions.
You refuse to defend indefensible statements.
You post "definitions" without any sense of context.

When will you "contribute" to a thread?

Specifically, tell us how the TPM didn't deserve new notice for the NY results.
Tell us how the TPM is less legitimate than the "D" or "R" candidates or positions.
Tell us ANYTHING that fits in this thread other than your railing against capitalism.
YOU CAN'T! you don't exist; you are a pre-programmed machine

I've read your posts; you are here to derail and disrupt with disinformation.

I DARE YOU to post something substantive. (you won't)

You are a fraud and a waste of bandwidth.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Janky Red

 

When you got your pathetic socialist script 2 weeks ago, did you think you'd just get a green light to start posting crap?

You refuse to answer specific questions.
You refuse to defend indefensible statements.
You post "definitions" without any sense of context.

When will you "contribute" to a thread?

Specifically, tell us how the TPM didn't deserve new notice for the NY results.
Tell us how the TPM is less legitimate than the "D" or "R" candidates or positions.
Tell us ANYTHING that fits in this thread other than your railing against capitalism.
YOU CAN'T! you don't exist; you are a pre-programmed machine

I've read your posts; you are here to derail and disrupt with disinformation.

I DARE YOU to post something substantive. (you won't)

You are a fraud and a waste of bandwidth.

jw

Don't recall...

Already have,
* Our societies trust is being undermined left and right by all kinds of institutions, I was trying to point this out - you ignored it and redirected the conversation.

* I defended a social theory that I believe is accurate

* I posted WIKI and a dictionary entry - You attacked WIKI and apparently the
word SOCIETY gets lost in translation from English to German.

* Imply- Implied

involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.

Apparently lost in translation again...

dictionary.reference.com...

* Implied Trust

Trust that arises from the un-expressed and presumed intentions (inferred from a trustor's conduct, language, or relationships)

www.businessdictionary.com...

* IF they are elected in accordance with law then it is fine, I think the GOP and DEMS need a good purging, but I do agree that becoming more radically right is good for the country because how much you all adore the WEALTHY ELITES, which is evident in your free market ideology. You place business on a pedestal and then complain about Government which is tainted by the same business interests you defend. Then to fix the problem you suggest providing more power to the principle in the corruption. Its like taking a crap into ones own mouth...

* Tea Party can be what it wants, I just think it is ridiculous that the TP does not take a better look at their views towards CORPORATIONS, which is half of the problem and the
initiator of the core problem.

* Whos railing about capitalism? I am against the things that create corruption in our country Heindrich. BIG BUSINESS WILL become your master far more thoroughly than any government. The PTB is NOT government - it is the money and men that utilize government. You want to save this country, but you are too damn stubborn to see the big picture.

As I have observed - BIG MONEY controls capital by controlling the ones who control the system. NO system???
once again Big Money will make a new system and control that too. We were once the AMERICA of 1776 - who's in control now?

. Unfortunately many of you guys have your head all the way up RANDS butt. I am surprised that there are not photos of a 20 mile tall, rotten Ayn Rand walking around in Dallas posted here on ATS.

Extreme Righties consistently miss the need for balance between the two biggest financial forces in society - government and Elite business. My qualm with the TP


I addressed many question you asked and expanded, marked with *

Now answer this in thorough manner

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?

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

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

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]

reply to post by Janky Red
Is ATS your excuse for "gov.101"?

You throw out generalizations, fail 100% to back any up, and throw more out again.

I can do the same same from my pillow any Sunday.

Dream of "what if" scenarios.

"What the Hell are you talking about?
("Brian Griffin")

reply to post by Jenna

Originally posted by Jenna
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.

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

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.

reply to post by Jenna

Originally posted by Jenna
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?

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.

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.

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.