Tea Party Movement

<p>Well here's my take on all of this.</p>

<p>I'm a moderate, I vote for candidates on both sides. I agree with the Republicans about reigning in runaway spending. However, I think we all benefit from programs such as public school education, medicare, social security etc.... I am in favor of big government IF spending is used as best as possible (no earmarks). I think if we ended the wars and put all the money put towards the war effort towards our schools, fixing social security etc... we would see a positive result. I mean heck my college is a state school and is only 12% funded by the state of South Carolina and lots of public schools K-12 are in bad shape. We can't fix anything without spending more money. Of course the key is WISE spending, and I'm not confident both schools can do that.</p>

<p>Of course this is easier said than done. And of course I just free wrote so none of that probably conveys what I want to say correctly. And I'm not a political science major so I know nothing about politics haha</p>

<p>The WBC is not a conservative group.</p>

<p>In fact, it considers traditional conservative groups such as Catholics to be satanic.</p>

<p>Just because it has the word church in it doesn't mean it's conservative. And as you stated, the leader is a Democrats.</p>

<p>The WBC is considered a hate group, pure and simple.</p>

<p>Party affiliation =/= political ideology. Did you miss that part? Just because the WBC condemns other conservative groups does not make it liberal. Many liberal groups condemn the ELF and the ALF; by your logic they are conservative. You need to brush up on your logic.</p>

<p>Also, the "60s liberals" who were against government were mostly rebels, who were not considered part of the mainstream, unlike the Tea Partiers, whose events somehow have earned legitimacy because our media likes to create thrilling narratives.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I don't want personal attacks either, but OKing it for one group but being critical of another for the same things is being a hypocrite.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then how about being critical of both groups for it? Right now, it seems as though your line of thinking is 'well, the Dems did it, so the Reps should too.' Really, that was my mentality in 2nd grade.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because the current Democratic Party is nothing like the traditional Democratic party you saw in the 50's, this is the 60's marxist philosophy being shoved down the countries throat.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) It's as if the words 'Marxist' or 'communist' are automatically flagged as inane and bigoted without an actual understanding for what such terms entail. Is a Marxist commonwealth necessarily an 'evil' system of government? Really, part of the reason I abhor the Tea Party Movement is simply because its members throw around words like 'socialism' or 'fascism' without knowing what they mean -- they just use loaded diction to attack any cause they don't support. Moreover, I love how those on the far right (especially Fox News) readily denounce Obama as 'fascist' yet still others on the far right attack him for being 'socialist' when, in reality, such ideologies are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.</p>

<p>2) Just where is the Marxist philosophy? Lowering class stratification? Redistribution of wealth? Socialized medicine? Sorry, but none of that is anything remotely close to the bloody proletariat uprising. If anything, the label is closer to socialism, which is definitely NOT Marxist communism, and, even then, a very mild brand of socialism at that (relative to the systems of other developed countries).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I always found it odd that the Liberal 60's movement was mainly an anti-government movement, yet today those same liberals embrace government and want to turn over all it's control to the very people they protested against, doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The same way that conservatives rail against 'big government' yet readily ask the same government to legislate morality? Liberals protested the SOCIAL policy of government and supported the ECONOMIC dimension of its actions, just as conservatives protest the economic functions of government and support social legislation. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, this same situation may occur with the Tea Party years out, we don't know. But right now, I'd much rather cast my vote for them than some party line puppet.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you completely ignoring the party dynamics IN office? That would be like Clinton's second term gone awry -- no one would get anything done. The presidential agenda would be so extreme that not even all the REPUBLICANS, much less Democrats, in Congress would throw their weight behind such aims. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Thirdly, it lessens ear marks and pork belly spending.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You mean pork BARREL spending?</p>

<p>Other than your opinion, there is no linkage between the WBC and conservatism.</p>

<p>The "church", has no affiliation with the actual Baptist church either, it's basically a hate group run by some guy and his family.</p>

<p>I'm saying they are liberals either, they are just nut cases.</p>

<p>The Asdenancy,</p>

<p>When did I ask our government to regulate morality?</p>

<p>I think the government has the obligation to uphold our laws, and to some extent keep us from becoming animals, but not sure where you are pulling all that crap from.</p>

<p>Also, I don't get what you are saiyng, are you defending communism?</p>

<p>BTW, here is a nice audio clip of Obama talking about how the 60's movement failed to "redistribute the wealth"</p>

<p>YouTube</a> - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered</p>

<p>Starts off good, talking about civil rights - but then, the socialist in him takes over.</p>

<p>I don't label myself.</p>

<p>Democrats don't seem to really have a solid platform on anything except for redistribution of wealth and rhetoric, yet republicans spout a bunch of propaganda and are biased towards every single little thing.</p>

<p>Obama is a political puppet, though, from what I've seen and why I lean towards GOP.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Asdenancy,</p>

<p>When did I ask our government to regulate morality?</p>

<p>I think the government has the obligation to uphold our laws, and to some extent keep us from becoming animals, but not sure where you are pulling all that crap from.</p>

<p>Also, I don't get what you are saiyng, are you defending communism?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said YOU wanted government to 'regulate morality'. That's the general ideology of conservatives as a WHOLE. My point is that the conservative protests can be viewed just as "hypocritically" as the 60's anti-government rallies.</p>

<p>And no, I'm not defending communism. Are there certain tenets I find morally and politically defensible? Yes. But that's beside the point, which is that extremist groups readily throw around these loaded words without an idea for what they actually entail.</p>

<p>Well, the current Progressive movement is dangerously close to socialism, it's hard to see when one philosophy ends and the other one starts.</p>

<p>^can somebody define socialism for me? I know a lot of people label Obama as a socialist.</p>

<p>When I think of socialism I think about western European countries not an exact equal distribution of wealth.</p>

<p>Also, Ascendancy - </p>

<p>I am not anti-democrat, nor am I really anti-liberal.</p>

<p>Admittedly, I do not support liberalism, however I do see the importance of having a balance in society, with contrasting views.</p>

<p>If this was 1950, I'd be a Democrat, and I have no issues with the Democrats core beliefs. However, our current leadership are not Democrats. Not in the least. They are just using that title to push their own agenda, that is much more progressive/socialist than actual Democratic principles.</p>

<p>^can somebody define socialism for me? I know a lot of people label Obama as a socialist.</p>

<p>When I think of socialism I think about western European countries not an exact equal distribution of wealth. ~ Pierre</p>

<hr>

<p>Like I said Pierre, Obama is for the redistribution of wealth.</p>

<p>Go back and listen to that audio I provide, he comes right out and says it!</p>

<p>^no what I was just asking is if socialism is solely about the redistribution of wealth? I don't know what socialism is all about. How is it different from communism?</p>

<p>I know nothing about political theories, guess it's time to get myself educated</p>

<p>
[quote]
If this was 1950, I'd be a Democrat, and I have no issues with the Democrats core beliefs. However, our current leadership are not Democrats. Not in the least. They are just using that title to push their own agenda, that is much more progressive/socialist than actual Democratic principles.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's no point in saying, 'If this were year _<strong><em>, I'd be _</em></strong>.' Fact is, ideology changes, party platforms change, leadership changes. Politics is flexible and amorphous. If you want an even starker contrast, compare the 1950 Democrats to the original Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century -- NOTHING alike. Point is, politics should be evaluated with respect to the status quo. Otherwise, party labels become nothing but empty, historical terms.</p>

<p>And the current agenda is only mildly socialist. It's not like this is anything new, the Dems have been associated with 'socialism' for a while now -- think New Deal/Great Society legislation. My beef is that the word is used simply to monger fear ever since the McCarthy era. Since when was government control over key industries a terrible, or even novel, idea? Society is already mildly socialist: many would agree on the need for government regulation of clean water, energy distribution, and communications/infrastructure development.</p>

<p>Well, far terms like progressive, marxist, communism, and socialism get thrown around in a debate without being properly defined.</p>

<p>However, at some point - they all meet.</p>

<p>Redistribution of wealth, government control of industry (bank, automotive and oil is next), pushing a reliance on government programs compared to free market options (health care), ect.</p>

<p>It's how socialism and communism start.</p>

<p>I wish I had the quote, and I can't remember who said it, but it was by a Russian politician who said that America won't become communism over night, it will happen in stages, and eventually we will become communists without knowing it.</p>

<p>That is exactly what is happening. Little by little - more government control, small doses of socialism that go unnoticed.</p>

<p>We won't be invaded by a socialist country and turned into socialist overnight, it will come through the courts, the ACLU (an organization founded by communist to spread communism), and progressive legislation.</p>

<p>the tea party is such a pathetic joke. if a frontman like palin isn't sorry enough, constant whining for lower taxes while desperately seeking to make sure none of their benefits are touched is just so much selfish greed. "lower all our taxes besides Medicare!" what a surprise considering the vast majority of the tea party is made up of old white people... </p>

<p>good thing there's not much thinking going on in their group, or fear-mongering buzz words like SOCIALIST! and COMMUNIST! wouldn't hold so much weight. go ask the people of North Korea or China if Obama's a socialist; they'll laugh at you for the idiot you are.</p>

<p>next you'll be asking for his birth certificate again too right?</p>

<p>And the current agenda is only mildly socialist. It's not like this is anything new, the Dems have been associated with 'socialism' for a while now -- think New Deal/Great Society legislation. My beef is that the word is used simply to monger fear ever since the McCarthy era. Since when was government control over key industries a terrible, or even novel, idea? Society is already mildly socialist: many would agree on the need for government regulation of clean water, energy distribution, and communications/infrastructure development. ~ The Acdensary</p>

<hr>

<p>Well, perhaps in political theory, but I think most of us Americans base our rights off of the constitution, which discusses the rights of the government to provide for its people (public works/infrastructure/education).</p>

<p>However, Obama and his bailouts are just an all out money grab for control.</p>

<p>god I hate ACLU haha</p>