Many of the posters here hold a dim view of the tea parties because of distortions from highly partisan sources such as diverse as Daily Kos, New York Times and MSNBC (well, maybe those examples are not too diverse). In this thread I would like to discuss on an intellectual plane the goals and priorities of mainstream teabaggers. If you want to waste your time hurling insults, go to Batman Jones' thread. I don't have time for purely pugnacious exchanges because it takes time for my tea party organizational work. Let me first explain some of the goals and tenets to which we actually adhere: 1) Tea party activists are a very diverse group from a political standpoint, but we are committed to talking to each other and finding common ground. 2) Grassroots movements are never homogenous in thought or action but the basic tenets such as freedom of speech and thought, distaste for intrusive government, love of country and constitution and disgust for wasteful governmental spending at all levels are held in common. 3) Tea party participants strongly favor health care reform but are highly suspicious of a governmental takeover through public option or even co-op, which many fear is a single payer by any other name. Tea party participants, at least those with whom I communicate, are not racist despite not having as much racial diversity as I would like. Many voted for Obama but have been disappointed with the people with whom he has surrounded himself and his failure to be a uniting force, although it's not his fault he is saddled with Nancy Pelosi as speaker and Harry Reid as majority leader. Personally, in my tea party group, champions and detractors of Obama's policies have a platform to vent. However, those who are opposed to Obama because he is black (or half-black) are excluded. They can go to the KKK site if they so choose, but we don't want that sort of thing clouding our venue. Now, I will sacrifice some of my organizational time to discuss the merits and weaknesses of the tea party movement, but again, if you just want to toss insults, do it within Batman's thread where only like-minded people will visit. I have little patience with the type of poster who wears freedom of speech and thought on his/her heart sleeve but is the very first to take those freedoms from others when and where they can. Sadly, those who keep their eyes wide shut and use only invective and ridicule to "win" their argument push moderates into harder stances and weaken the very fabric of democractic society.
What a silly little "I'm taking my ball and going home" post... I'm all for the open discussion of the Teabaggin' ideals, but if you think starting this thread is going to somehow magically shield you from the criticism raised in BMJ's thread, you're either kidding yourself or a total rookie to this forum. So Batman deciding to remove FFB from his facebook is now considered "taking away freedom of speech"? Are you kidding me? (and if that isn't what you're referring to, please tell us... i'm super curious)
Cool thread. Do you feel like you are better informed than the average teapartier? From looking at the signs and interviews of teapartiers it seems like they don't have a very detailed grasp of the issues beyond 'socialism = bad'. Is that just media bias? Or is there some truth to that? In your group is there a 'birther' contingent, or an 'antichrist' contingent, or are those grouped shunned the same as the racists are? Do you think that if Mccain was elected and still went through with the bailouts and the ballooning national debt, would teaparties still be happening?
well written, thumbs. The liberals here like to simply hurl insults and then cowardly hide behind the other like-minded leftied in this forum to provide them refuge. It's the old liberal pile on technique.
This may be true, but they (not you) definitely don't seem committed to talking to anyone else and finding common ground. They primarily, in their rallies, just denigrate and demonize the other side. Honestly, I think this is exactly what non tea-partiers feel that tea-partiers are doing by holding rallies with signs about socialism and nazi-ism and armed insurrection and whatever other crazy stuff they have.
Funny, coming from someone who is hurling insults (cowardly) and hiding behind thumbs' post and just piling on without adding anything of substance.
Criticizing actions or inactions, beliefs or non-beliefs, policies and procedures, etc. is fair. I seek no "magic shield" from logical argument. However, I will counter argue them only within an arena of civility but not in a Roman circus.
One of my burning questions is where were these teabaggers during the Bush years when we had a Republican Capitol spending like drunken sailors? It is highly suspicious that when we get Dems in office, all the sudden the fiscal responsibility rangers come running to the rescue. And don't give me that "two wrongs don't make a right" BS. Explain to me where the outrage was, or rather, why it wasn't.
Check bigtexxx's last several posts in the D&D. His contributions to the D&D lately are either bitter, inflammatory one-liners or whiney "the big bad libs are pickin on us" pout-fests. It's almost like he has given up entirely.
Why do delusional right-wingers always claim that those who disagree with them are threatening their freedom of speech?
lol glad to see you're following me around, brah I've hardly given up. Just been tied up with work. You liberals may not understand what that means.
so ridiculous the signs/posters and responses to reporter's questions are were discussed amongst yourselves first so they're pretty representative of your collective belief? can you give specifics? freedom of speech and thought distaste for intrusive government love of country and constitution disgust for wasteful governmental spending at all levels are held in common what specific reforms are you open to?
Question 1) -- No, but I try to be. Question 2) -- It's difficult to define a complex issue in a slogan. Many of the rally attendees IMO got carried away competing with each other to have the "cleverest" slogan. Question 3) -- The birther and antichrist contingent are fringees that get all the publicity because "nuttiness" sells. Question 4) -- If McCain had been elected, I'd be out in the street protesting his tax credit plan. It's woefully inadequate. Just as an example, I'm an Hispanic with Type 2 diabetic requiring two types of insulin and $1,500 worth of meds monthly with 20% kidney function and neuropathy that limits my mobility. My insurance is costly but keeps me going. McCain's plan would not have covered me for two months. The tea kettle would have blown under any new President (thanks, W), but a lot of Obama's alliances and appointees IMO increased the virulence.
I agree with your first assertion: political diversity. I have seen NO evidence of the second assertion: finding common ground. Holding up signs and shouting obscenities (and make no mistake: mocking the death of a man who devoted his life to public service in the Senate is obscene) is not trying to find common ground: it's trying to pick a fight. It's counterproductive, and it's NOT in the best interest of our country as a whole. Which of course, by extension, means those they are protesting are against freedom of speech and thought, want government in every aspect of your life, hate their country, spit on the constitution and LOVE wasteful spending. What a bunch of flag-waving nonsense. First of all, one could argue that these aren't really "grassroots" movements, since they are coordinated and planned by corporate run media (I'm looking at you, Fox News), under direction from a political party (I'm looking at you, GOP). Secondly: PICK AN ISSUE, and maybe we can find some common ground. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be out there in groups shouting. That's a mob, not a political protest. Well, first you say they aren't homogenous (sp?) in thought, now you say they all strongly favor health care reform but are highly suspicious. Which is it? Because judging from the signs and slogans they shout, they seem to want the status quo. Which is NO LONGER an option, due to absurdly rising costs, plummeting quality of care, insurance companies who would rather kill their customers than pay for treatment, and the sheer volume of uninsured and under-insured citizens in the country. I will readily accept that your group is not racist, and will even further accept that many tea baggers aren't as well. But when they appear in large groups holding up signs and shouting slogans that are offensive at best, and downright racist at worst, you can see where your group has gotten its reputation.
I think this is a very fair question. To my dismay, I voted for Bush -- twice. However, I don't think we would have faired any better under Gore or Kerry. The nation just didn't have a good presidential candidate in 2000 or 2004. As it is beginning to look, we didn't have a good choice is 2008 either. Obama was elected as a backlash to Bush and his policies. That's why McCain tried to distance himself from Bush but would not risk alienating the far right. Perhaps because voters knew Bush was a lame duck, they waited for a uniting force, which many perceived Obama to be. However, Obama has failed in this regard. The first indication of " false bi-partisanship" was the appointment of NH Sen. Judd Gregg -- the proffered cabinet post where he was stripped of any power or access to the President from Day 1.
Thanks for the response, but this doesn't really answer my question. Also, what are you talking about BMJ taking away people's right to free speech? I'm really baffled on that one.
