Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tea Party Movement Scores Its First Political Scalp

page: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 





What in the world makes you so sure that employers won't move any more jobs offshore?


Last week they closed a small factory in our area that employed about three hundred, they went to Mexico.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
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's mostly the methods of the anti-war protesters that I personally criticize, can't speak for anyone else so I won't try. Attacking recruiters for doing their jobs, damaging government property, throwing fake blood on people, and protesting funerals is not the correct way to go about voicing displeasure over the wars. That is what we have seen from many anti-war protesters and for those things they (the ones who did them) deserve to be criticized.

To an extent I agree with the anti-war protesters. We entered Iraq based on lies, you'll find no argument about that here. I bought those lies just like everyone else did in the wake of 9/11. There weren't many people back then who opposed going to war and holding the people responsible accountable.

I can't remember if it was this thread or another, but like I've said before it's easy to point fingers 8 years after the fact. Many of the anti-war protesters supported the wars 8 years ago. Doesn't that make them hypocritical as well? How is that any different than what is going on with the Tea Party movement?


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.


Not you maybe, but it happens frequently to myself and others around here. During the Bush years we were right, now that Obama's in office we're just racist. Doesn't matter that we are still opposing the same things we did last year. Doesn't matter that we're being consistent. It's viewed as hypocrisy instead. As I've already said, I'm sure there are some who only support the Tea Parties because they are opposed to Obama. The enemy of my enemy and all that. But they don't constitute the majority of the movement.

I don't think anyone expects to be accepted with open arms. They just don't expect to be dismissed and looked down on for doing the same thing they've been doing for years or for finally waking up and seeing what's been going on around them. Something I hear quite frequently around here is "Where were you when Bush was doing it?". The answer to that question just as frequently is "Speaking out against what he was doing, where were you?". That is not hypocrisy. That is consistency.


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.


Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but to me they are both equally important. My husband is in the military, the war directly affects the lives of myself and my family. Much more so than someone who doesn't have family in the military. The bailouts, government takeovers of private industries, whittling away of the Constitution, massive government spending, expanding government, etc. all also directly affect the lives of myself and my family. They are all equally important issues that need to be fixed, no one issue is more important than the others.

Asking someone to say the wars are more important when something else may be affecting their life more just isn't right. I see that as an attempt to make the Tea Parties into anti-war protests when that's not what they are. They are a large group of people from all walks of life that are sick and tired of what the government has been doing. Not just one thing the government has done, but everything it has been doing. Attempting to focus it on solely one issue would defeat the entire purpose.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


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.


Why do you PRESUME anyone supports such crap?

That is pure "straw man" trash. None of the TPM support what you just said, yet you present it as if it were established.

You are a fakir.
You are a fraud.

Prove me wrong.
jw



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 

First of all I would like to say thanks to you and your husband for your service. The family serves just as much as the one in uniform.

I can understand that there are many like yourself that are honorable and have good intentions. We do have many problems in this country and I think we can agree that corporate power in Washington is the cause. However, I don't think you realize that the majority of the people that make up the TPM are the ones that I am describing.

They see this administration as the country moving toward socialism, and I will say that is a worthy concern, but to claim that the government is taking over the corporations is ludicrous. It is exactly the opposite, and that is not socialism. Some of you are being mislead into believing the exact opposite of what is really going on. It is the corporations taking over the government that we need to worry about and that my friend is called fascism. In my opinion, that is what this movement may actually be supporting, so excuse me if I don't jump on your wagon.

I appreciate the civil discussion.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Prove me wrong.
jw

Sure. Have you ever criticized Cindy Sheehan for protesting against the Iraq war?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Since you haven't answered, I'll assume that you did criticize Cindy Sheehan for protesting against the Iraq war. In that case then you were supporting the previous administration's decision to invade another country and hence also supported the government at that time. Back then it was the war protesters that were anti-government, and you were on the other side. Now you claim to be anti-government and support the TPM protesting against the current administration.

How can you NOT see the hypocrisy?

If you were against the war and support the TPM, then you will find that you are in the minority within this group.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I hope this is the beginning of the end of the Neocons...and hopefully go back to the Democratic party where they belong.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Hal9000...Jenna...


I think if the tea party movement were headed by Ralph Nader, I would be out there, too.


"Tax reform" is a phrase that means all things to all people, especially in Wash­ington.

To corporations, "tax re­form" means lower taxes and special loopholes al­legedly to give them more incentive to make money from consumers

To the average taxpayer, "tax reform" means repeal­ing those loopholes and spe­cial provisions for the rich and powerful so that the burden falls less heavily on the little guy.


This is from 1975!

The title of that source is A Grass Roots Tea Party. And that one really was.

Since that time, Americans have been molded to accept that corporate interest and citizen interest is one and the same. Since that piece was written, corporate takeover of government has been well established.

Politicians now rely on corporate bribes to their campaigns. Corporate lobbyists write bills that favor corporations and advise their corporate political clients. Corporations needed a smaller govt for regulation but a larger govt structure to dole out taxpayers money in the efforts to "privatize" govt functions.

Americans were duped into rallying for a war with Iraq, a war that was highly privatized, a war where our military has been so badly treated by the very govt that deploys them.

It is not the fault of govt...it is the fault of a corporate takeover of the govt. President Eisenhower warned 50 years ago of the military being taken over and milked for all it's worth by industry. He would be ashamed of how Americans have let their entire govt since 1980 be taken over and milked for all the taxpayer worth.

Like the phrase, "tax reform", tea party cries of a "smaller govt" can mean different things, depending on whether one is an individual or a corporation. Truly Orwellian.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by jdub297

Prove me wrong.
jw

Sure. Have you ever criticized Cindy Sheehan for protesting against the Iraq war?


I will not criticize anyone who speaks for themselves. Echo trash, and you are fair game.

What does Cindy say?


the Afghanistan that was invaded in 2001 has very little resemblance to the Afghanistan of today. Many analysts say that our rationale for being there: al Qaeda has long ago moved on. What about the history that Jimmy Carter’s administration was responsible for arming, training and otherwise supporting (and creating) al Qaeda in the first place and that Jimmy Carter signed an order supporting the Mujahadeen against the USSR in 1979 which spurred the Soviet Union’s invasion that resulted in a decade long bloody war that defeated the USSR’s military empire.

Let’s go back to Genghis Kahn and Alexander the Great and Great Britain…no empire has ever been “successful” in Afghanistan and it really makes me wonder what “history” Barack Obama is learning from. Not the “history” where Afghanistan has been the burial place for empire, that’s for sure.

Obviously, obviously our “leaders” are out of control and there is no mass movement of Americans who will be able to get out in the streets to stop the homicidal maniacs


cindysheehanssoapbox.blo...
gspot.com/2009/09/you-have-to-learn-lessons-from-history.html

look for yourself

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 4-11-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
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")


I'm not generalizing for the fun of it, I am speculating based upon what I have learned here. I think you guys want thing wide open for the private sector from what I understand.
But given what some the private sector has done with intent and neglect creates a threat to the country and frankly the world. Not a grave threat, but our country let our
industry off the chain and it bit us in the ass. All I know is I hear the same: "free the market trickle down song" which is the GOP'S tune. Correct me if I am wrong...

Are you TP's going to regulate the wolves on wallstreet and the sheep in DC?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
I will not criticize anyone who speaks for themselves. Echo trash, and you are fair game.

You really can't see it. Can you? Just in the line you just typed, you are telling me you don't criticize anyone for saying what they think and in the next sentence, criticize me for what I am saying.

How does that work? I believe that after years of watching Fox propaganda it can actually alter the way you reason, but I've never seen such an obvious example of it.

So now you are saying that you didn't criticize Cindy. Did you not criticize her, just as you are not criticizing me now?

For the record, are you now saying that the Iraq war was a mistake and the Bush administration mislead the American people into invading that country without just cause?



What does Cindy say?

I don't know what this proves. Just because you site a source and type something doesn't automatically mean you made a point.

Edit to add: If anything, Cindy is saying that the government was out of control and there are not enough people to stop them. But you guys just figured that out recently after the government bails out Wall street? So invading countries and putting our troops in harms way is OK, but when they bail out a company, NOW you get concerned. Give me a break.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


What does Cindy say?

look for yourself

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

So am I supposed to read your mind and figure out what point you were trying to make. No thank you. That's a place I'd rather not go.

If you are referring to the democratic connection, that only reinforces that you are showing you and the TPM right wing bias.

BTW, as to your so called scalp, your prefered candidate lost the election.


WASHINGTON (CNN) – CNN projects Democrat Bill Owens wins in New York's 23rd congressional district, defeating Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.


politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

So I guess you can chalk up two scalps, one of them being your own.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
OK. ELection results in and I remain confused by what is meant by...
"Tea Party Movement scores it's first political scalp?"

TPM drives out the moderate GOP candidate in favor of a far right conservative with an extremist social agenda.

And as predicted Hoffman lost!!

If by "score" the TPM means giving NY 23rd to a Democrat FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE CIVIL WAR.....then mission accompished.

If by scalp they mean causing the Moderate Republican who was leading in the polls to drop out of the race and endorse a Democrat...then yes that's a scalp I guess.

IF "TEA PARTY" MEANS SABOTAGING GOP CANDIDATES AND GIVING SEATS TO DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE BEEN REPUBLICAN FOR A CENTURY OR MORE THEN THEY ARE DEMOCRATS...NOT CONERVATIVES.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

The way I understand it is that the TPM scored it's first scalp meaning they forced their first conservative heretic to drop out of the race so another had a chance of winning. Whether it was the moderates that went to the other side or they followed the deposed candidate's advice to vote for the democrat, they lost either way.

This is being viewed as the Tea Party folks "cleansing" the conservative party of a heretic and exposes them for the right wing extremists that they are.

They are not non-partisan as the OP describes in the first post.

If you recall...


Originally posted by jdub297
Just in case anyone STILL is gullible enough to think that
"Tea Party" = "Republican," maybe you can start to admit the truth that you (and the Rebublicans and RINOs) have denied for so long ... .




So call us all your stupid made-up slurs, use your intellectually-bankrupt pet names, but it's time to face ideological reality:

"We're mad as Hell, and we're NOT gonna take it anymore."

The Tea Party movement is NOT and never has been Democrat v. Republican; FOX v. MSNBC, or any of your make-believe pigeon holes.

Dismiss us, write us off all you want, but we are going to bring this Country what it wants: REAL "Change" you can believe in.

(and you better believe it)

jw


How can you claim to be non-partisan and force one of your own out of a particular political party? This is exactly the kind of vitriol that Glen Beck is promoting as non-partisan and it is anything but.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I would still consider it a victory for the tea party movement, as they ousted a pre-selected candidate that no one had voted for in favor of one of their own choice. Hoffman lost, but he went from a virtual unknown to losing the general election by about 4% in the span of about three weeks.

In reality, what happened here is that the GOP primary more or less played out during the last 2-3 weeks of the general election. The result was obviously utter chaos, and while the Republicans were busy fighting a battle that normally would've happened eight months ago, Owens slipped through relatively unscathed to win.

The true test will come at this time next year, when Owens has to defend that seat in a normal race.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway
reply to post by jdub297
 


I hope this is the beginning of the end of the Neocons...and hopefully go back to the Democratic party where they belong.


YOU mean the NEOCONS who held cabinet positions in REPUBLICAN administrations
while REAGAN was in office, gee... The same ones who the CONSERVATIVE base keep voting in



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Thank you for Denying Ignorance.

I kept trying to figure out the spin that had been put into that comment...but it was not spin, just plain ignorance.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Sure. Have you ever criticized Cindy Sheehan for protesting against the Iraq war?


I met Cindy at a war protest. She is a publicity-hound hypocrite using her son and her family troubles for her own personal aggrandizement.


to claim that the government is taking over the corporations is ludicrous. It is exactly the opposite, and that is not socialism. Some of you are being mislead into believing the exact opposite of what is really going on. It is the corporations taking over the government that we need to worry about and that my friend is called fascism. In my opinion, that is what this movement may actually be supporting, so excuse me if I don't jump on your wagon.


There are no TPM advocates I know of who favored Obama taking control of Chrysler, stealing the pension rights of retired teachers and policemen in favor of FIAT and the UAW. There are no TPM members I know who approved of Obama ousting Chairman and CEO Wagoner out of GM and taking control of GM.

When the Obama administration owns major interests in CITIGROUP, AIG and signs the Chris Dodd legislation giving them $165million BONUSES, the TPM members I know feel outrage.

As Mussolini observed 70 years ago, fascism is the merger of the corporation and the state.

Of course, having GE executive Immelt, and the gangs from CITI and Goldman Sachs as his closest advisors ensures Obama's admin will retain control over banking and finance for a while.

I fail to see where any TPM protests supported such overreaching and self-dealing.

Now you know why I hestitate to respond to gibberish.

jw



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



In reality, what happened here is that the GOP primary more or less played out during the last 2-3 weeks of the general election. The result was obviously utter chaos, and while the Republicans were busy fighting a battle that normally would've happened eight months ago, Owens slipped through relatively unscathed to win.

The true test will come at this time next year, when Owens has to defend that seat in a normal race.


In the HOURS since Owens was sworn in, he's followed the Obama principle(or lack of any):

Promise to oppose the "public option" in the campaign, support it in office

Promise to oppose Medicare cuts in the campaign, support them in office

Promise to oppose middleclass tax increases, support them in office

Promise to oppose taxing health benefits, support taxing them in office.

You guys get what you deserve.

jw






top topics



 
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join