What is the Tea Party?

[sandorski]

We call them "Yankees"...

hehe

 

[CallMeJoe]

Give them time

They can't take away our corn liquor; how are they going to take away our vinegar?

 

[spidey07]

They can't take away our corn liquor; how are they going to take away our vinegar?

You take away my vinegar slaw on my BBQ, you go to hell...you go to hell and you die.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Zorkorist]

The Tea Party appears to be what Ross Perot's Independent Party was back in 1990. While I didn't vote for Ross then, I have hated myself ever since.

If the Tea Party posts a candidate, I will vote for them.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

'except Sarah Palin... I won't vote for her.

-John

 

[drbrock]

john I have to agree I wilf vote for a tea party candidate, but no sarah palin.

I cant get behind her. She seems to manufactured and fake for me. and after that 60 minutes with Mccains old adviser talking about her, I lost a lot of respect.
And come on writing stuff on your hands, you really could not find a flash card.

Although many tea party people love her, i know my dad is going to vote for her. I would rather have huckabee. I am glad he did not run against obama last term. Jesus himself would have had to run to beat him with all the hype.

Huckabee could have a real chance this time around.

 

[HumblePie]

john I have to agree I wilf vote for a tea party candidate, but no sarah palin.

I cant get behind her.

Lack of a tramp stamp turn you off or something? Personally I think her face is a bit ugly, but I think I might manage from the back.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...I would rather have huckabee. I am glad he did not run against obama last term. Jesus himself would have had to run to beat him with all the hype.
Huckabee could have a real chance this time around.

I shall support no theocrat for president.

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” Mike Huckabee, Jan 14, 2008

 

[Pens1566]

I shall support no theocrat for president.

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” Mike Huckabee, Jan 14, 2008

That quote made me vomit in mouth a little bit.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I congratulated the South Carolina Tea Party Faithful earlier in this thread for refusing to be co-opted by the state's Republican Party through the vetting of "Tea Party Republican" candidates. As it turns out, the rift was quite short lived. There was a press conference in Greenville Tuesday wherein the two groups announced that they shall cooperate in the selection of appropriately "Conservative" candidates.

The Republicans may soon regret this pact. This morning, one of the loudest voices of the Tea Party in this region (Russ Cassell, WORD morning talk host) announced his displeasure with the Republicans. It seems that one of the Republican Party officials (I missed it if he named the offender) dared to say that if the Tea Party's favored candidate lost the primary to another candidate (Bob Inglis and Lindsey Graham were Mr. Cassell's examples), the Republicans would have the nerve to support their own candidate.

Let me repeat: our local Tea Party radio host and his callers are outraged that if they cannot muster enough votes to win the Republican primary, the Republicans will not commit political suicide by withholding support from the candidate their party's primary voters selected.

For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind...

 

[HumblePie]

That quote made me vomit in mouth a little bit.

Me too

 

[CallMeJoe]

That quote made me vomit in mouth a little bit.

If you like the idea of an American Theocracy, you'll love a Huckabee presidency.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Captain America hits a little too close to home for the Teabaggers' comfort:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100211/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1129

 

[Fern]

I congratulated the South Carolina Tea Party Faithful earlier in this thread for refusing to be co-opted by the state's Republican Party through the vetting of "Tea Party Republican" candidates. As it turns out, the rift was quite short lived. There was a press conference in Greenville Tuesday wherein the two groups announced that they shall cooperate in the selection of appropriately "Conservative" candidates.

The Republicans may soon regret this pact. This morning, one of the loudest voices of the Tea Party in this region (Russ Cassell, WORD morning talk host) announced his displeasure with the Republicans. It seems that one of the Republican Party officials (I missed it if he named the offender) dared to say that if the Tea Party's favored candidate lost the primary to another candidate (Bob Inglis and Lindsey Graham were Mr. Cassell's examples), the Republicans would have the nerve to support their own candidate.

Let me repeat: our local Tea Party radio host and his callers are outraged that if they cannot muster enough votes to win the Republican primary, the Republicans will not commit political suicide by withholding support from the candidate their party's primary voters selected.

For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind...

Sounds to me like the South Carolina Tea Party Faithful didn't get co-opted by the state's Republican Party, rather the state Repub party capitulated.

I suspect in states where the Tea Party is strong that's going to be the rule rather than the exception.

This will be an interesting election, if only to see where, and how strong the Tea Party actually is.

As to the selction of "the selection of appropriately "Conservative" candidates" I don't see that how that works. If you're registered as a Repub and file the election paperwork, you're on the ballot. There is no chosing by the party. I suppose they could possibly be referring to financial support from the state party, but I don't think that occurs at the primary level.

If the Tea Party is as strong as they say, at least in some states, they won't likely have any problem getting a conservative candidate elected at the primary level. OTOH, other than polling I'm not sure how you can accurately measure the support of Tea Party voters vs regular Repubs in a primary election.

The election might be interesting if the Tea Party actually runs third party candidates against the Repubs. Might just work to elect Dems, OTOH if the the Tea Party candidate gets more votes than the Repub (or actually gets elected), could scare the crap out of the Repubs.

Lot of possible scenarios, and complicated by the fact that the Tea Party doesn't really have any leaders. I suppose some may tout themselves as leaders, but from what I can tell the average Tea Partyer considers themselve grass roots and independant. I.e., many don't acknowlege a leader.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

Sounds to me like the South Carolina Tea Party Faithful didn't get co-opted by the state's Republican Party, rather the state Repub party capitulated...
Fern

As I said, the Tea Party locals refused co-option by the Republican Party through the designation of official "Tea Party Republican" candidates. They have, however, stopped short of rejecting an alliance with the GOP.
I agree that the Republican Party is bending to the will of the Tea Party organizers and question their wisdom.

 

[drbrock]

look you can make this a religious argument if you want. huckabee used to be a minister. Everyone knows that. But what I think he means in that quote ,that is horrific, I agree taken out of context, is that America has lost its moral basis which was based on christian principles.

Over the past 40 years there has been a dramatic change in the American way of life. The poor have become much better off and the rich have become much better off. The middle class is getting smaller.

I think the general American middle class population is getting furious in today's conditions. Why should they work hard to have to a similar life style to a person making half their pay or not even working. The poor may not know it but without a party like the tea party our country will turn into a EU style government. There will only be rich and poor/middle poor. no more american dream.

The captain america thing is hilarious. People need to relax when it come to making fun of groups. If Marvel really thinks that the Tea party is racist, white, anti american people, I feel sorry for them.

How about captain america fight extremist muslims that would create a shit storm lol

 

[HumblePie]

look you can make this a religious argument if you want. huckabee used to be a minister. Everyone knows that. But what I think he means in that quote ,that is horrific, I agree taken out of context, is that America has lost its moral basis which was based on christian principles.

I threw up even more in my mouth.

Don't even go there. Not wanting to get this into a religious debate, as there are plenty of those, but stop saying that! It's not true! Majority of the founding fathers were not Christian at all. Many followed Deism, and if any sect provided "founding morales" as guide lines it was free masons. Again, it was not Christians. Also to point out, there really isn't many "morales" in the Christian bible at all except maybe to love thy neighbor. Remember, Christian Bible = new testament.

 

[drbrock]

I threw up even more in my mouth.

Don't even go there. Not wanting to get this into a religious debate, as there are plenty of those, but stop saying that! It's not true! Majority of the founding fathers were not Christian at all. Many followed Deism, and if any sect provided "founding morales" as guide lines it was free masons. Again, it was not Christians. Also to point out, there really isn't many "morales" in the Christian bible at all except maybe to love thy neighbor. Remember, Christian Bible = new testament.

I knew I should have expanded upon just Christianity. You can look at the majority of religion and the morales are very similar.
Plus the new testament has plenty of messages is in it. Why would people look to it for advice if it didn't. Plus I did not mention the founding fathers but I did find an article about it though.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

The majority were from different sects of Christianity, surprise!

I was merely mentioning the fact that most people living in the colonies were christian and the basis of the laws came from christian principles which probably came from the Entire Bible old and new testament and that is what Huckabee IMHO was trying to say.

Last time I checked Free Masons wasn't a religion. But I do agree with you that many if not all the leaders were involved in it.

And yes the tramp stamp on palin back is the reason I get behind her

 

[BoberFett]

That quote made me vomit in mouth a little bit.

Huckabee was frightening. Thank his god he never went anywhere as a candidate.

 

[HumblePie]

drbrock,

I don't even know where that site got it's percentages of founding father religious preferences. I know by their OWN handwriting that Franklin, Paine, Allen, Jefferson, and Madison were Deists. But only Franklin is listed as possible Deist? Washington by Frankin's same writing was a Deists and some of what he said he was. Others started out loosely tied to a Christian sect, but were Deist. They retained ties to the Christian Church, but were practicing Deism or Utilitarianism. Pretty much most of the "Episcopalian" listed founding fathers at the time were either Deists or Utilitarians as the Episcopalian at the time was a very loose title for any possible Christian sect such as Utilitarians. Quite a few of the founding fathers in that list we have no clue what their religious affiliation was yet they got grouped into Episcopalian or Congregationalist.

Now all the Founding Fathers were religious. All of them had good standing and favorable views by Christians and the Church. None of the were non-theist or aethiest at all. However, the overwhelming percentage were Secularists that believed firmly in the separation of Church and State, including perceived morale values. This is why we don't have the morale value in any government document dating from the time to "Fear God" which is a Christian, as well as other religions, morale is it not? Again, none of the founding fathers were professors or religion either.

Another interesting thing to note about our previous great leaders, is that two of the Greatest Presidents we ever had were both George Washington and gold ol' Abe Lincoln. While George started Christian and by later writings of friends like Franlin were said to have converted to Deism, Lincoln was NOT Christian. Actually, he is probably Americas only non-theist president. He actually SCORNED Jesus in writings and the though of miraculous conception. He also never set foot in a church.

Again, please stop saying America was founded as a Christian country. It was not.

Granted, the majority of the population throughout American history has been Christian though. But the population doesn't write our laws either.

Another thing. I never said Free Masons was a religion either. I just said if any of the morales our country were founded upon came from anywhere, it came from Free Mason beliefs more so than Christian ones. Christianity is not the fount of all morales.

 

[BigDH01]

drbrock,

Now all the Founding Fathers were religious. All of them had good standing and favorable views by Christians and the Church. None of the were non-theist or aethiest at all. However, the overwhelming percentage were Secularists that believed firmly in the separation of Church and State, including perceived morale values. This is why we don't have the morale value in any government document dating from the time to "Fear God" which is a Christian, as well as other religions, morale is it not? Again, none of the founding fathers were professors or religion either.

I take issue with this. Paine wrote the Age of Reason which pretty much attacked the Church and Christianity at the time. He was strongly disliked by the Church and devout followers.

 

[HumblePie]

I take issue with this. Paine wrote the Age of Reason which pretty much attacked the Church and Christianity at the time. He was strongly disliked by the Church and devout followers.

Okay, one exception. Always an exception Okay, almost all the founding fathers, except pain, still had religious ties to the Church even if that was having a friend they knew going to one. I knew I was forgetting something and stand corrected. Thanks Big.

Edit, while Paine wasn't Christian at all, Age of Reason was a Deist based book though, so you could still call him religious in that he believed the higher power and reason were one and the same. So part of my previous statement stands true.

 

[BigDH01]

Okay, one exception. Always an exception Okay, almost all the founding fathers, except pain, still had religious ties to the Church even if that was having a friend they knew going to one. I knew I was forgetting something and stand corrected. Thanks Big.

Edit, while Paine wasn't Christian at all, Age of Reason was a Deist based book though, so you could still call him religious in that he believed the higher power and reason were one and the same. So part of my previous statement stands true.

Age of Reason did cause a slight Deist movement in the US at the time. I actually like Deism as a philosophy and you are correct about the more notable founding fathers. Jefferson even wrote his own bible that removed superstitious aspects of the New Testament. I imagine that he would've also been disliked by the Church if he had published it while alive.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/214.html

the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. that form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

 

[drbrock]

humble pie

you are completely right about the seperation of church and state and I completely agree with it. We would turn into a something like an islamist state
I don't think i am explainging myslef in the well. Our morales have to come from somewhere and our country is spiraling out of control in many ways regardless of liberal or republican. at the end of the day they really suck as parties IMHO.

I think that is why the Tea Party is starting to get a serious following. I can't stand listening to Glenn Beck but he is the number one show for a reason. People in America are starting to get fed up with many of the policies.

 

[BigDH01]

I think that is why the Tea Party is starting to get a serious following. I can't stand listening to Glenn Beck but he is the number one show for a reason. People in America are starting to get fed up with many of the policies.

It's #1 because people have populist rage. It's easy to be a follower and men such as Beck are easy to follow.

I just can't view the movement as a serious platform from which to launch a campaign. From my limited personal experience, the Tea Party is just a movement for people to express a generalized outrage for what they perceive to be un-American. Anyone I've ever questioned about these beliefs seem unable to genuinely construct a good argument for any specific claim or policy. Their modus operandi, as far as I can tell, is just to construct a massive framework of "poison the well" fallacies. If you agree with UHC, we don't need to debate you, you are just a Socialist, ad nauseam. The problem with this type of discussion is that it doesn't lead to real solutions, it simply puts the proponent of UHC in the unenviable position of defending their "non-Socialism" or, worse, defending the merits of Socialism, an argument that goes nowhere. This is what disturbs me most about the Tea Party. It's less about solutions than it is the mentality that "we're right because we're not them."

If I heard one Tea Party protester sit down and say, "this is how we solve the free market inefficiencies that exist in a market like healthcare that lends itself to these inefficiencies while trying to ensure that working blue-collar Americans at least have some degree of coverage," I'd be all ears, and gain a lot of respect. Until then, all I see is generalized anger.