The Tea Parties, lets get something clear.

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets

Excuse me OP but you ARE trying to make it out like you're an expert on this political group.

Your excused and you are wrong.

You have hung yourself with your own words. You claim these people are *not* racist and then you turn around and say you've been to only TWO meetings.

I said that it is a fabrication to categorically say that the Tea Parties are racist. These claims are based on a few instances that are blown up in the media against the reality that I and many others have experienced.

You do not have enough information to make a blanket statement.

So I don't have enough information to claim that these people aren't racists. I am sorry, but when someone is accusing someone else of racial bigotry, the burden of proof is on them, not the accused.

And I see now you're trying to bolster your original story.

Do I offend you by saying that we should have an actual discussion of issues rather than accuse each other of bigotry, or did you skim my post, generalize, and miss the entire point?

I've said this a thousand times but I'll say it again: if you are going to try to Propagandize for whatever cause you believe it - it helps greatly if you actually know what you're talking about.

You seem to think you know what you are talking about.

I guess the Tea Parties must be racist, because despite empirical evidence and personal accounts, we do not know everyones hidden, true motivations for being there aren't racist.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by DINSTAAR]

reply to post by maybereal11

Gotcha. It was a mixed labelphor...which made me nuts...liberal is to conservation, not liberal is to GOP. My ADD makes me need to have things parallel.

And speaking of candidates, which I asked about early on but probably got lost in my excited babbling, does the Tear party actually have any? With which to make a difference in November?

It would be nice if the Tea Party would make up its mind. Do TP members expect to be heard and taken seriously on their message or do they want to remind everyone they have no cohesive group, unified message, or any orginisation at all?

Which is it?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I was wondering something along the lines of that (candidates).

Someone else mentioned we shoud try to vote in a statesman and earlier in this thread someone mentioned it again. I'm all for leaving the professional politicians in the dust

Let me start by saying great post.

This discussion has already led to where BOTH parties want it.

1. The Dems want to paint the TPM as one and the same as the GOP to get their base away from the TPM and to vote against its candidates.

2. The GOP wants to be associated as one and the same as the TPM so they can keep their base that left the GOP for the TPM voting for their GOP candidates.

Don't you folks see. Its in BOTH parties collective interest to divide this group, keep people from defecting to it, and squash it. The TPM is the only threat to their monopoly of power.

As for the anger at the government, and that being a possible spark that turn the TPM into "brown shirts" or violent, I would remind you of a few ordinary citizens that were angry at their government back in 1776, started getting together, and turned violent towards that government.

reply to post by indianajoe77

Are you advocating violence?

And here again, we see this as an evil malevolent plot.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by maybereal11

 

And speaking of candidates, which I asked about early on but probably got lost in my excited babbling, does the Tear party actually have any? With which to make a difference in November?

So I googled Tea Party Candidates and this was my first return..

CANDIDATE LIST UPDATED: July 12, 2010
These are individuals who support limited government, limited spending, personal liberty, and lower taxes. These individuals represent conservative principals. No Liberal-leaning Neo-Cons or RINO's will be found on this list.

Complete with the GOP symbol on the website...
rebuildtheparty.ning.com...

See the problem with folks associating the GOP with the TPM?

Here is some good reading on TP candidates from the WSJ
online.wsj.com...:SB10001424052748704734304575120362014554880.html

edit: Link doesn't work...google this "Tea-Party Candidates Face Hard Reality of Campaigns" WSJ

To some extent there seems to be a retreat to supporting GOP candidates rather than running independants.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by indianajoe77
1. The Dems want to paint the TPM as one and the same as the GOP to get their base away from the TPM and to vote against its candidates.

I have to ask why Dems would want that if the TPM was truly made up of people from all walks of life. Why would they not be looking to co-op these folks just the GOP wants to?

2. The GOP wants to be associated as one and the same as the TPM so they can keep their base that left the GOP for the TPM voting for their GOP candidates.

Who were the TP folks going to vote for anyway? Is Ron Paul running for every seat in both houses or were they already leaning pretty right?

Don't you folks see. Its in BOTH parties collective interest to divide this group, keep people from defecting to it, and squash it. The TPM is the only threat to their monopoly of power.

That makes no sense after the two statements you just made.

As for the anger at the government, and that being a possible spark that turn the TPM into "brown shirts" or violent, I would remind you of a few ordinary citizens that were angry at their government back in 1776, started getting together, and turned violent towards that government.

So you hope that happens again?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]

Originally posted by indianajoe77
Don't you folks see. Its in BOTH parties collective interest to divide this group, keep people from defecting to it, and squash it. The TPM is the only threat to their monopoly of power.

The only threat the Tea Party has is to its own credibility.

As long as it remains a disjointed group of people who are all over the map and seems to include members with a clear racially antagonistic agenda that act as representatives of the Tea Party they are always going to be perceived as a fragmented mess of blindingly angry bigoted people

The Tea Party leaders have come out and condemned the racism within it's group so clearly it is there. Their own former spokesperson seemed keen on pushing the racial envelope till he and his group were dismissed. Showing a black member of the Tea Party then becomes pretty irrelevant.

I came across and read this article and it pretty much sums up how I feel about the subject:

Tea Party shouldn't be broad-brushed, but some messages are racially divisive

Not all Tea Party activists are racists. Let's get that one out of the way up front.

And disagreeing with the president, when the president is black and the dissenters are white, isn't automatically racism. Not sure anyone said it was in the first place, but some of President Barack Obama's political opponents try to make themselves look like victims and divert challenges to the substance of their arguments by wearing that chip on their shoulders.

But one would have to be willfully blind — or completely ignorant of the insidious ways that race divides us and creeps into our conversations — to not recognize the racially charged messages put forth in some of the placards and slogans at Tea Party rallies across the country, including in Plymouth.
Hometownlife.com

I think they need to actually focus on a common goal/message, not simply come together based on a shared distaste for the government then spread out and allow other groups to hijack their popular name to further other political agendas.

It shouldn't be surprising that the Tea Party will be looked at as holding those beliefs as well.

- Lee

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I respond to this with phrase "Where Zen ends, ass-kicking begins".

Violence is sometimes necessary in this world. But let me make clear, it should be the very, very, nothing-else-will-work last resort. I'm hopeful that our system of government can be reformed by working inside the system, the way it was intended to function. But, I will not rule out violent revolution as the only way to have a government by the people for the people.

Sometimes change happens slowly through time (USSR to Russia), other times change comes fast with giant upheavels, blood sacrafice, and plenty of hurt to go around (Russia to USSR).

reply to post by maybereal11

Very interesting, indeed. About what I thought. Looks like a back door into the GOP to me. Pathetic. If I'm wrong, tell me where.

Found this in the article a bit alarming too...antigovernment views. Libertarians and Constitutionalists re NOT antigovernment. They are for limited government. Cooperation rather than coercion.

Why has libertarianism all of a sudden become antigovernment?
Someone is going to come along and say it's the leftists, but take a look at many of the posts in this thread, and there's your answer.

This is exactly how I'm seeing things as an interested party from the outside looking in.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


You are dead on. If anything, minorities are even MORE welcomed because it is so refreshing to see a minority that isn't afraid to step outside the box and not be afraid to be called an "Uncle Tom" or a "traitor" because they choose to stop playing the victim and take control of their destiny.

I just wish the poor and minorities in this country could see how the left is intentionally making them dependents, with a very political agenda.

I can't say it loud enough, all people of all colors are welcome to any TEA party! PLEASE, come and join us. We will be waiting with open arms!

God Bless

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Thank you but it won't do any good. Haters hate. That's what they do. Control freaks control. That's what they do. They won't change and they are willing to tell any lie about anyone to get their way.

I'm deeply saddened to see the 1960's repeated, but then history always repeats. It seems to be a natural law. Oh well, at least they are not spitting on Soldiers, YET.

Up here the Tea Party People are for the most part not even part of the groups you mention. They are just normal hardworking people who see their country going to hell under the thumb of an out of control Administration and Congress. They have been watching this for decades and they want their voices back.

Like you I don't join Party's or movements, but I'll be damned if I'll lie about these people. They, like me, seem to be pissed off at both Parties equally. That just makes them intelligent in my eyes.

The Candidates up here have even stopped putting their party affiliation on their ads or campaign material. I think they are becoming embarassed they have to belong to a Party, any Party.

I've been active in both Parties during my life and one is equally bad as the other.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84e3743d207f.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Blaine91555

Sorry, If forced to pick a label, I'm more of a purist libertarian. I wouldn't go anywhere near this mess of a Tea Party. You all have a severe PR problem...among many other things.

Do you seriously believe, Blaine, that any sort of majority is going to vote out unincumbants if that means voting for a Democrat? Seriously? Or are you all writing in someone else?


[edit on 7/29/2010 by ~Lucidity]

As far as I understood the matter, the allegation was not, that everybody, that goes to a Tea Party is a racist, but that racists seemed for a long time welcomed guests at Tea Partys. Among other hategroups.

If you are part of a crowd, and someone carries a sign, that makes your stomach turn, its your decision, either to leave the crowd, to start a discussion with the guy until he drops the sign or to help promote his message, simply by standing next to him.

Now finally some organizers got the message and kicked out some of the most blatant racist groups, that used the Tea Party as their platform.

What I still dont get about the Tea Party crowd, is, that they are fed up with government infringement of privacy, terrified of future debt and feel betrayed by the financial political complex, but eagerly help to reelect the bigger of the two evils up for choice.
Yuhay, vote Republican, that will show those bastards in Washington. Rich people must not pay taxes and corporations must not follow any rules! Or at least dont vote Democrats, because its all the same and they changed nothing but transformed the country in a socialist state.... Cuckoo!

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae

Originally posted by indianajoe77
1. The Dems want to paint the TPM as one and the same as the GOP to get their base away from the TPM and to vote against its candidates.

I have to ask why Dems would want that if the TPM was truly made up of people from all walks of life. Why would they not be looking to co-op these folks just the GOP wants to?

2. The GOP wants to be associated as one and the same as the TPM so they can keep their base that left the GOP for the TPM voting for their GOP candidates.

Who were the TP folks going to vote for anyway? Is Ron Paul running for every seat in both houses or were they already leaning pretty right?

Don't you folks see. Its in BOTH parties collective interest to divide this group, keep people from defecting to it, and squash it. The TPM is the only threat to their monopoly of power.

That makes no sense after the two statements you just made.

As for the anger at the government, and that being a possible spark that turn the TPM into "brown shirts" or violent, I would remind you of a few ordinary citizens that were angry at their government back in 1776, started getting together, and turned violent towards that government.

So you hope that happens again?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Adevoc Satanae]

First, the two-parties are working together to destroy the TPM. The roles that each are playing is this:

The Dems are the bad cop; they will call the TPM racists, republicans, haters, everything under the sun so that their traditional base will be against anything the TPM does, keeping them in the DNC fold and bringing back those that have left.

The GOP is playing good cop; they will tell the TPM people that all their ideals are the same as the GOP, that the GOP hears them, and that they should be voting for the GOP candidates instead of splitting the vote resulting in Dems getting elected. This gets their base worried about "throwing" their vote away on non-GOP candidates and pulls their base back into the GOP fold.

On your third point, I think your confusing the TPM with other Parties, like the Libertarians or Independents. These people aren't voting specifically for any established party, but INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES based on that candidates views. Period. It doesn't matter if the candidate has an (I), (D), (R), (G), or (C) behind their name.

And I contest that yes, it does make sense that the two established, controlling parties would work together to destroy any movement that contains people from both the right and the left. The TPM disintegrates both parties bases because it offers a real, third alternative to their 2 candidates.

Finally, see my response above on the violence issue. And let me make it clear again, and again, and again. I am not for violent revolution, but I'm also not naive enough to think that it is never necessary. And again let me make clear that I hope our system can be reformed from inside the system first, without violence being needed.

I thought something might become of the Tea Party group until Sarah Palin hijacked it as the leader. I then lost all hope for it. What better way to disolve an organization than to let a member on one of the opposition lead it and embarrass it. It's a joke now. It only solidified my contempt for it when I saw people with Tetley tea bags.....what a joke!

Man...the two parties are working to destroy the TPM? That's a bit paranoid. Seriously. I think the TPM is doing fine in this all by itself...bear with me...trying to keep this straight...

1. No leaders.

2. No candidates.

3. One-threaded platform, depending on who you ask, Constitutionalist or antigovernment maybe both

4. Paranoia to the point of non-cooperation and no focus on items 1-3.

5. Taking the bait for childish battling. Related to item 4.

What else?

Yeah, that's true, Tea Parties are benign and non cohesive and non racist.

Anyone that reads Alex Jones Infowars website will know that the media is demonizing the Tea Party for reasons of their own.

Look for future terrorists to also be associated with Tea Party groups.

reply to post by c3hamby

A good start would be if their members didn't go around saying they're antigovernment? And maybe also not responding to the blantant lies, accusations, and vilification and focus on leaders, issues, and candidate?