Tea Party Movement

College Life
61

<p>The ACLU may be a liberal organization (or perceived as such) but as others have pointed out, it is NOT a radical organization. While there have been various interpretations of Marx’s original vision of communism, including a peaceful uprising of the proletariat and a extremely bloody one. There is no singular consensus among Marxists just like there is NO singular consensus among Tea Partiers. One cannot generalize about broad movements like Conservatism, Liberalism, and Marxism because there is a constant evolution, again as others have pointed out. Bringing up historical examples of things political parties <em>should</em> have done doesn’t address the needs of the modern world. History should only be applied to politics when absolutely necessary; politics moves to fast otherwise. </p>

<p>I too find the overuse of “hot” words like Communist, Socialist, and Fascist to be enormously tiring and confusing because not only does it muddle the political position of the speaker(s) it also makes it difficult to ascertain the correct message they want to give out. Because a large portion of Tea Party rhetoric (that I’ve heard so don’t go Googling Tea Party quotes that contradict this statement; this is purely personal experience) seems to be a mush of “Obama is a fascist pig who wants to use taxes and give money to the businesses,” or other similarly confused statements it proves that Tea Partiers are simply angry (and rather uneducated politically) in general. They are the end result of a hundred years of political bullilled with false promises and failed administrations. I don’t blame them for being angry, I blame them for failing to do research before speaking. </p>

<p>If the point of the Tea Party is to ensure a small, controlled-by-the-people government, why then do they protest the very things that involve people in government or educate them to be involved? Many “liberal” policies such as improvements to public schools, health care, and welfare simply make it possible to have a politically active and knowledgeable populace. </p>

<p>Alright, end of my rant. Reply (agree, disagree, add to) if you’d like but I’m not going to be monitoring this thread every minute so don’t expect a prompt response (if any).</p>

62

<p>IBfootballer: I would call the WBC’s demonstration full of fighting words. They are looking for a response, presumably direct so they can get as much news coverage as possible (to spread their message of course…). If the Supreme Court were to find the same way, they would hopefully limit such protests.</p>

63

<p>Interesting Fact:</p>

<p>Tea Party Members are ON AVERAGE better educated (and therefore of higher social status) than the average american. A quick search of the major News Sites would confirm this.</p>

<p>All of the pinning of uneducated conservatives is undue.</p>

64

<p>My dad is a member of this party. I find they are hypocrites. They claim that they deserve representation, and they do, but only if they represent a majority. These people, including this moron Angle, want to use “second amendment remedies” on Harry Reid. What the hell? I respect their rights, but they can’t possibly think that they represent a majority of Americans. These are the people who believe we are being to harsh on pwoor ickle BP (boohoo ='[) after it has ravaged the Gulf. These are the people who think we should get rid of the DoE and Social Security. I consider myself a centrist, but the Tea Party-ers are taking votes from the Republicans which is against their goal. They’re far to extreme and every day they say something that is beyond absurd. My dad still believes Obama was born in Kenya. Here is a man who always said “Show the President some respect” when Bush was in office, but defends Barton and Joe Wilson. Hypocrites is all I can say. </p>

<p>I’d like to see how long this country would last without regulation.</p>

<p>Anyway, I’m sure you are talking about Chris Matthew’s documentary. It was biased, but not to any extreme. He did not challenge them at all and let them speak completely (which, in my opinion, is more effective than backing them into a corner on their flawed opinions)</p>

<hr>

<p>I love politics :p</p>

65

<p>I find it hilarious that the people who <em>claim</em> to be populists want small government and big private industry. The government is a democracy (DEMOS KRATOS - “POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”), so when they say “take away power from the government”, it’s “take away power from the people.” And give it to who? Why, the private sector, of course. You know, the one controlled by a few rich people (“the elite” <em>gasp!</em>). How to fix this would be to institute a democratic economy. Ah, but that’s Communism - not fake Soviet “we’re going to say we’re Communist to win over the people, then oppress them” Communism, but actual good-for-the-poor, bad-for-the-rich, Communism. See if that makes Glenn Beck’s head explode. </p>

<p>Also, I find it funny that the Tea Party movement tries to push this “We’re a Christian nation” idea, yet doesn’t follow the words of Christ. “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone” (tea party: “capital punishment! woo!”). “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” (tea party: "big business! woo!) “If you see a man dressed richly and a man dressed poorly, do not treat the man dressed richly better, for it is he who oppresses you” (Sarah Palin: $150,000 on clothes and makeup in a few months). Ah, hypocrisy. Oh, and we all know how “Drill, baby, drill!” worked out.</p>

<p>-a proud Socialist</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>The Tea Party is overwhelmingly white and male. White males are on average better educated and more wealthy than the “average American”. A meaningless comparison, and a flawed poll by NYTimes anyways.</p>

67

<p>Politics back on College Life? Hooray!</p>

<p>Anyway, I’m not exactly sure what the tea-party stands for, but if it’s for government, I wholly disagree with it :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m still waiting for the socialists refutation of “Economic Calculation in The Socialist Commonwealth”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>lolwut?</p>

68

<p>

You see, in a democracy, the power is held by the voters, the people. Democracy literally means power to the people. This gets corrupted when big business and the rich corrupt politicians. When government is scaled back, that area is filled by the private sector (the rich, the elite, those without social welfare in mind). When government has power, it is good for the poor, when it loses power, it is bad for the poor. This, at least, is true for democracy. So I’d say the best application of “Don’t Tread on Me” in keeping with the original spirit, would be to oppose the tyranny of the rich.</p>

69

<p>And when you say “good for the people”, you mean entitlements, welfare, and other payoffs to gain votes, right?</p>

<p>Because that is all it is - a nanny state catering to lazy people who are dependent on government aid.</p>

70

<p>You see, in a democracy, the power is held by the voters, the people. Democracy literally means power to the people. This gets corrupted when big business and the rich corrupt politicians. When government is scaled back, that area is filled by the private sector (the rich, the elite, those without social welfare in mind). When government has power, it is good for the poor, when it loses power, it is bad for the poor. This, at least, is true for democracy. So I’d say the best application of “Don’t Tread on Me” in keeping with the original spirit, would be to oppose the tyranny of the rich. ~ Billmc</p>

<hr>

<p>And who do you think the government holds allegiance too? The meak voters? Or the major corporate donors, and political affiliated PACs, who actually get them elected?</p>

<p>Give me a break. Every politician in Washington is bought and paid for by one industry, organization or cause - and you want more of that?</p>

71

<p>When government is scaled back, that area is filled by the private sector ~Billmc</p>

<hr>

<p>Yeah, which equal jobs that actually provide a service and create revenue without being dependent on a taxpayer to support a bloated beaurocracy.</p>

72

<p>Well, the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, where the will of the majority of citizens is tempered.</p>

73

<p>I would completely ignore the political allegiance of the founder (even if he were a KKK member) if it were completely irrelevant to the group’s agenda. Again, bad case of genetic fallacy. ~The ascendsary</p>

<hr>

<p>Right, because we all know that the political philosophy of an organizations founder never effect the agenda of the organization itself, right?</p>

74

<p>When government is scaled back, that area is filled by the private sector (the rich, the elite, those without social welfare in mind). ~ BillyMC</p>

<hr>

<p>Also, where the hell do you think politicians come from? Coal mines and corn fields? Not bloody likely, huh?</p>

<p>No, they are “elite rich” that you seem to hate so much (just more of your un-American, anti-capitalism rhetoric). Even your boy Barry Obama was a Harvard educated “elitist”, and your boy Ted Kennedy sure wasn’t brought up in in the middle class either. Pelosi? Her father was the former mayor of Baltimore and a US Congressmen for nearly 10 years.</p>

<p>I mean, give me a break? The politicians you want to give more power to are the SAME EXACT “elite super rich” in the private sector that you are against giving power too, so what’s the deal?</p>

<p>I mean, you really think that ANY politician has “social welfare” in mind? Hell no, of course not. Both parties are interested in one single thing, furthering their political agenda and gaining more control for their political philosophy.</p>

<p>And I will admit the “super rich private sector businessmen” aren’t “socially welfare” minded either, but guess what? They provide jobs and build wealth for other people - which is much more important when solving social issues than passing out entitlement based hand outs. </p>

<p>The private sector IS THE PEOPLE, it’s the taxpayers! So what’s up with the hate for them? If it wasn’t for them, you wouldn’t have a taxbase for you welfare hand outs, huh?</p>

75

<p>There are only a set amount of resources on this planet, enough for around 8 billion people to have what they need. We have 6.8 billion now, yet so many go without what they need. This is the fault of the rich (regardless of their individual political leanings). When someone has 1,000,000x what they need, that means 1,000,000 people go without what they need. When the rich hold so much wealth, it becomes impossible for everyone to have what they need. Therefore, the rich are the enemy and oppressors of the poor, whether an individual means to be or not. No matter how many jobs a rich person creates, if it serves to enrich them, it is of a detriment to mankind.</p>

76

<p>There are only a set amount of resources on this planet, enough for around 8 billion people to have what they need. We have 6.8 billion now, yet so many go without what they need. This is the fault of the rich (regardless of their individual political leanings). When someone has 1,000,000x what they need, that means 1,000,000 people go without what they need. When the rich hold so much wealth, it becomes impossible for everyone to have what they need. Therefore, the rich are the enemy and oppressors of the poor, whether an individual means to be or not. No matter how many jobs a rich person creates, if it serves to enrich them, it is of a detriment to mankind. ~BillMC</p>

<hr>

<p>You’re a moonbat.</p>

<p>And I suppose it’s up to YOU or Politicians TO FORCE people to give up their money? </p>

<p>You’re a hypocrite, pure and simple.</p>

<p>You’re sitting here typing on a computer (that I’m sure wasn’t cheap) and paying for internet service. Do you really need a computer and be paying for the internet when you know there are people out starving?</p>

<p>Are you living in a hut? Giving all of you money that isn’t used to feed yourself or cloth yourself to charity? Do you drive a car? Buy gasoline? Go to the movies? Play video games? Own a TV?</p>

<p>Surely none of those things are essential, so you must be living beyond your means - which makes you evil, right?</p>

<p>I live in a 3 bedroom, 2 bath home, I guess I’m evil too?</p>

<p>I go to work everyday, earn a paycheck and I use it to pay for my families expenses, more evilness, huh?</p>

<p>BTW, more jobs = less poverty. You can’t donate money unless you have it first, huh?</p>

<p>I hope everyone can tell from this guys post how radical and crazy these people really are.</p>

77

<p>I always thought that the distinction between socialism and communism is that socialism is a means to a communist end. A country becomes a socialist state to encourage communist ideas, and once those ideas take hold and everyone’s working and sharing in perfect harmony, the government is eradicated and the nation becomes a communist state. Under this definition, there has never been a communist state. This is the only real problem I have with communism: not that it’s such a terrible idea, but that it’s such a positive idea. Entirely too optimistic to work. Communism depends on a perfection the human race will never achieve, while capitalism hinges on the fact that people are (for lack of a better word) selfish.</p>

<p>Anyway, I find the Tea Party movement ineffective as a movement (I actually believe it’s ridiculous to call it a movement). It lacks organization and real leadership. As a result, you get a large group of people who lack a common motive. They develop large protests with opposing ideas.
“Oh, Obama is a communist.” “No, he’s a fascist.”
“I want less government control.” “Don’t cut Medicare benefits.”
Some push for a Tea Party candidate, but there’s resistance within the party that thinks it would be better if they stay disorganized. So nothing gets done. This disorganization will be its destruction. (After all, a a strength of the Republican party is its ability to vote in a block along a strict party line in Congress, while Democrats have far less consensus.)</p>

<p>I can’t say I agree/disagree with their politics because:
a.) The aforementioned disorganization.
and
b.) Whenever someone tries to sum up their objectives, they end up with overgeneralized objectives that don’t mean much. </p>

<p>But I can’t say I respect someone who resorts to childish tactics while debating. Like “Barry Obama” and “conseratards.” I actually heard someone call Obama a “purple lipped freak” the other day. Shame, shame people. At least call him by his name.</p>

78

<p>I don’t see how calling him Barry is really an insult, I mean - he went by Barry for the first part of his life, as did his father.</p>

<p>No different than referring to Bush as “Dubya.”</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>This is just awful economics. When a businessman (or woman) invests in capital goods that raise the total production of his company, both he and his workers benefit in the form of a higher real income (ceteris paribus), yet you say he did not benefit anyone because he became richer? Nonsense. There may be an absolute number of recourses, but there is an almost unlimited amount of ways to utilize those recourses. The point is, capitalism best utilizes them.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Sigh, did you completely ignore what I said? Read: “if it were completely IRRELEVANT to the group’s agenda.” That’s why your attack on the ACLU for spreading communism is fallacious – the group’s agenda has nothing to do with its founder’s political ideology.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What about all the Midwest and Southern congressmen? A lot of them DID grow up on farms. </p>

<p>And have you heard of substantive representation? Just because a politician is rich or ‘elite’ doesn’t mean he necessarily furthers the interests of the elite. Your example of Ted Kennedy is perfect – grew up in one of the wealthiest households in the nation yet an ardent advocate for the poor and for universal health care.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s also untrue, at least according to Fenno and the like. All politicians are re-election minded; thus, if their constituents support social welfare (as they usually do in poorer districts), then it’s likely said politicians do as well. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Because the government doesn’t provide jobs or stimulate the economy at all, right? Yes, private businesses are likely more efficient, but the problem is that they’re much more prone to corruption and atrocious working conditions without sufficient government regulation (see post-Civil War robber baron mentality).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Read A Theory of Justice by John Rawls – redistribution of wealth is in no way ‘evil’ and, as Rawls argues, is premised on our moral code. And how does that make the poster a hypocrite? Why can’t middle-class citizens advocate for the poor?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, capitalism utilizes our fixed resources most efficiently, but it distributes them least equitably.</p>