Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
Legend [18310]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 24634
Joined: 11/3/03
|
|
|
|
All-In [42597]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38622
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Like many movements
May 6, 2015, 9:55 AM
|
|
The Tea Party idea started as a noble gesture and soon became hijacked by idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18310]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 24634
Joined: 11/3/03
|
Exactly,
May 6, 2015, 10:16 AM
|
|
and the philosophy was certainly not new. Go Tigers.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15763]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17387
Joined: 2/1/99
|
What were the founding beliefs of the Tea Party?
May 6, 2015, 10:45 AM
[ in reply to Like many movements ] |
|
What are its beliefs now? Who are the idiots that hijacked it?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42597]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38622
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Reduction in debt, spending, government waste, etc.
May 6, 2015, 10:51 AM
|
|
Got hijacked by morons like Palin and other closet racists. I'm sure the core founders and operators still believe that, but the clowns who jumped on board because it sounded cool, not so much.
Same thing happened with Occupy Wall Street. Hijacked by buffoons.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15763]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17387
Joined: 2/1/99
|
What are the racial positions of the Tea Party?***
May 6, 2015, 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42597]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38622
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa... easy.
May 6, 2015, 11:08 AM
|
|
I see what you're doing.
The Tea Party doesn't have any racial positions. I'm saying that a lot of Jim Bob rednecks out there have attached themselves to it and brought their filth into the fold.
If you want evidence, just go searching through pics of some of these said Jim Bobs at Tea Party rallies. I'm not faulting the movement. I'm faulting what it's attracted.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15763]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17387
Joined: 2/1/99
|
:) You're right. Let me approach this more honestly.
May 6, 2015, 11:20 AM
|
|
I have no doubt that the Tea Party attracted the type of person you are alluding to. But how did it become that THAT is what defined the movement? What percentage of "that element" do you think made up the protests and demonstrations? 5%? 1%? But for some reason it's the first thing many people jump to when they hear the term Tea Party. I have seen a lot of demonizing of that "movement", and for the life of me, I don't get it. The protests were overwhelmingly civil, organized and without incident. The message was simple - the government takes too much, spends WAAAAAAY too much, and is too big in general. If someone disagrees with that, so be it, but even the most ardent socialist can respect the position even if they disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42597]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38622
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Think of it like branding or marketing
May 6, 2015, 11:31 AM
|
|
Let's look at an entity like Disney. We know Disney has been pretty heavy-handed about people using their cartoon images at will. I think they even came down hard on a daycare. But to Disney's defense, they're protecting their brand.
Same with any major corporation like Coke or whomever.
Now let's throw in an example like the Confederate battle flag. Look, I know it's not a corporation like the others, but the idea is still the same. In its first original form, the Confederate battle flag didn't symbolize anything racist. But it became hijacked by racists, KKK, neo Nazis in America, etc. The brand was abused and misrepresented. You can take a seemingly innocent symbol and turn it into something with a poor reputation, like the Nazis did to the swastika.
So back to the Tea Party. I believe it started out with altruistic intentions, and the people who founded it probably hold to those. But too many buffoons jumped on the wagon, and the brand became tainted in the eyes of other Americans. And, IMO, none of those founders have done enough to distance themselves from them.
So maybe 99 percent of the Tea Party followers aren't like those buffoons? Who knows. In the eyes of the rest of America, it doesn't matter. The brand has been tainted and that's their perception.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81705]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56608
Joined: 9/13/04
|
The media did more to smear the tea party brand
May 6, 2015, 11:51 AM
|
|
than any actual Tea Party members ever did.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5129
Joined: 8/30/14
|
Yep. How dare they show all those confederate flags
May 6, 2015, 12:17 PM
|
|
flying at TP rallies, and quoting speakers.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63338
Joined: 10/30/05
|
What'd they find, like three of them across the country?
May 6, 2015, 12:25 PM
|
|
If they would have put that much effort into smearing the OWS protest, they could have come up with a lot worse, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5129
Joined: 8/30/14
|
Here in VA, they fly at every TP rally.
May 7, 2015, 8:35 AM
|
|
We had a TP candidate in the Pub primary say in a speech that "if we can't win at the ballot box, we may have to win with the bullet box!" Luckily this dingbat bimbo got trounced by her NRA backed opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15763]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17387
Joined: 2/1/99
|
You GO to Tea Party rallies?***
May 7, 2015, 8:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5129
Joined: 8/30/14
|
They come to my historic town.
May 7, 2015, 10:45 AM
|
|
One enterprising local even opened up a store front that sold Tea Party themed shirts and assorted gear. Nothing shows your love for liberty and country like a yellow koozie with a Gadsen emblem.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15763]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17387
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I would argue that 1% of a cause being
May 6, 2015, 11:52 AM
[ in reply to Think of it like branding or marketing ] |
|
"Not what you'd want to associate with" isn't what impacted the brand. This was a concerted effort to marginalize the participants of this cause so as to avoid addressing the actual issues raised.
That, and Sarah Palin.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32025]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37268
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42597]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38622
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Because of the things she has said.
May 6, 2015, 11:25 AM
|
|
Feel free to Google them at your leisure.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32025]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37268
Joined: 11/22/03
|
no thanks***
May 6, 2015, 12:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81705]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56608
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
You just have to roll your eyes at stuff like this
May 6, 2015, 11:41 AM
[ in reply to Reduction in debt, spending, government waste, etc. ] |
|
The Tea Party was always a mainstream American political movement, which is why it was a natural fit for mainstream conservative politicians who saw themselves as outside the "establishment" of the Republican party- like Sarah Palin. However, Sarah Palin had already made herself irrelevant as a politician by the time the Tea Partiers really got going in 2010, and not because of "closet racism." There's lots of stuff you can criticize Palin for, but "closet racism" has to be the weirdest criticism of her I've heard.
Occupy Wall Street was always a movement of radical leftists and anarchists. It never had clear implications for American politics because its ideas were outside the American mainstream (and because their guiding theory wouldn't allow anybody to speak for them). In fact, it makes far more sense to say that mainstream liberal politicians who tried to use Occupy's momentum for their own political purposes were "hijacking" that message than to say that people like Palin were hijacking the Tea Party's message. Whether Palin and Occupy radicals are buffoons is beside the point.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31737
Joined: 8/27/02
|
OWS was a bunch of communists, not anarchists.
May 6, 2015, 12:21 PM
|
|
They essentially had communes in parks and everyone's voice was supposed to be equal. Between OWS and the Tea Party, whose members were more likely to support overthrowing the government? Or, at the very least, making the government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? It's actually become mainstream on the right to be borderline anarchist.
That said, I think they're all a bunch of clowns. Your post kinda reminds me of that episode of the Newsroom where they refer to the Tea Party as the American Taliban and to OWS as the American Arab Spring.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Those are not mutually exclusive
May 6, 2015, 12:43 PM
|
|
In Marxism, the last stage of the historical dialectic is communism, where there is common ownership of property by the proletariat/ working class and everyone is equal. At that stage in history, there is no need for a state, and you've actually got anarchy. However, the actual states that we call "communist" have never reached the communist stage of the dialectic, as they've always gotten stuck in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is the stage of the dialectic between capitalism and communism when the proletariat begins to transfer the ownership of property.
At any rate, most anarchists are also Marxists, and all Marxists are, in the end, anarchists. But Marxism is largely about how anarchism will be achieved, while anarchism is about describing the working class utopia.
By "occupying" public spaces, setting up alternative social arrangements, and treating the authority to remove them from those spaces as oppressive, the OWS folks were literally being radical. I mean, if you ask them, they'd tell you they're radical. To them, the American project is fundamentally oppressive. The Tea Party groups would tell you they wanted to go back to the Constitution, and that they wanted to restore the historical ideals of America. Even those who thought/ think the current government is illegitimate do so on the basis of what they think of as constitutionalism or founderism. It isn't really insignificant that OWS occupied while Tea Partiers lawfully protested or showed up to town hall meetings.
And the reference to The Newsroom just reminds me how idiotic that show was.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31737
Joined: 8/27/02
|
I think you missed the point about the Newsroom.
May 6, 2015, 1:04 PM
|
|
You're doing the same thing Aaron Sorkin did. "My team is good natured, thoughtful, well meaning idealists and the other side is super furious, irrational, radical nut jobs." It's not enough to simply disagree with someone, so you have to turn them into criminals and maniacs.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Um, no
May 6, 2015, 2:40 PM
|
|
OWS was explicitly radical. Just ask them. There may have been some liberal people associated with OWS, but their main thrust was radical. Those who've tried to adapt OWS's stuff to liberal mainstream politics are co-opting their radical message. But not everybody associates "radical" with "crazy," or "criminal," as you seem to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15763]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17387
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Lol.
May 6, 2015, 2:50 PM
[ in reply to OWS was a bunch of communists, not anarchists. ] |
|
"Your post kinda reminds me of that episode of the Newsroom where they refer to the Tea Party as the American Taliban and to OWS as the American Arab Spring."
The Tea Party as the American Taliban. They can't be serious.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32025]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37268
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I've got to ask....
May 6, 2015, 10:06 AM
|
|
did you really read that piece and find it insightful?
Really?
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: I've got to ask....
May 6, 2015, 11:54 AM
|
|
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=1455759
He got caught in another lie on this thread linked above.
He claims a lie told on his buddy Bill Clinton way back in 1990 was a "tea party" lie although the tea party wasn't a party at that time.
This thread is his attempt to spin his way out of that lie.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5527]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3814
Joined: 8/23/13
|
lol at the daily beast***
May 6, 2015, 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12269]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14009
Joined: 2/19/99
|
Re: A bit of Southern history.
May 6, 2015, 11:56 AM
|
|
Was LBJ a racist?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1482]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 2011
Joined: 3/4/11
|
Re: A bit of Southern history.
May 6, 2015, 12:20 PM
|
|
>Yet I think it > dates back to 1964 when Strom and others defected > from the Democratic party in and around 1964. Truman > was president then and Kennedy was developing as a > politician.
Uh, Kennedy was killed in 1963. And Truman was president in the 1950s.
In any case, you give the "tea party" too much credit.
Yeah, all kinds of people have had values regarding better/more fair taxes, reduced government, more libertarian social climate, etc., but this "tea party" isn't that.
It's a bunch of disgruntled baby boomers who don't like that the president is a member of the Democratic party. Period. Same as the types who made "militias" in the 90s.
They had nothing to say about trillion$ in debt and removal of personal liberties/freedom when a Republican was president, but go balls nuts if a Democrat is president.
It's that simple, and they're that simple.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|