What are you even talking about? Obama is a blatant extension of Bush. There are plenty of people who protested Bush that are now protesting Obama (people who understand and value the Constitution and Bill of Rights). The point is that both of them are ****ty. We need to stop letting ourselves get divided and conquered if we want to improve our government. Hint: The correct party is 'none of the above'.
Blatant? I'm not sure of that. But to a certain extent, yes, Obama is an extension of Bush. Yes. But this is not even remotely the case for the vast majority of the tea partying wingnuts. Agreed, to a certain extent. This is a wonderful ideological sentiment, but I'm not going to ally myself with fools and crackpots to "improve" things. History is full of examples that illustrate that such a notion is prone to spectacular failure.
History is also full of examples that show that our recent policies, and even some of the ones 100 years ago have been part of a gradual push toward socialism/fascism, this is not a new blueprint. As long as Obama is hand in pocket with the corporate, pharma, and big war machine, he is no different than Bush, and possibly worse for not demonstrably coming out and pushing to change his policies, instead carrying on where he left off. It's funny that most of the 'wing nuts', are anti-taxes, anti-war, and pro-freedom. There are a lot of religious zealots, loonies, blindly partisan and misinformed people as well (just like on the left), but I tend to ignore those ones and pay attention to the smarter ones of the group that share similar ideals toward moving humanity into a positive direction.
Rhad and Red Chocolate, if you want to denigrate people, go to Batman Jones' thread to vent and vomit all you please. However, if you want to cite specific criticism or praise of the Tea Party movement, I value your insight and commentary, you in particular rhadamanthus. But, in accordance with the Deckard Dictum, "Keep the D&D Civil." BTW, I am not going to be minding the store on a regular basis, but I will be in and out. I have neglected my other obligations for much too long.
Thumbs: That first post of mine was a little immature, I suppose, but it's hard to not sound elitist when the opposition seems perpetually mired in an ideology vs reality train wreck. However, that very same post was, I believe, very honest in the approbation of fear/confusion as legitimate motive for the rancor involved. The problem with such a rationale is that it rapidly denigrates into non-truths and paranoia, particularly when the powers that be who are vested in resisting the change involved stoke the fires, so to speak. You and I may have civil discourse over relevant obstacles to health care reform or stimulus policies, but the vast, vast majority of tea partying rank and file are completely obtuse in that regard. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you do a great disservice to your own opinions by continuing to associate yourself with the aforementioned "movement". It's not a movement - it's just inflamed ignorance on a gross scale, but masquerading on various media outlets as righteous indignation. It's the Fox News version of mob rule.
Thumbs, You seem genuine in your wanting to discuss the issues in a civil manner so I will try to do the same. I remember the first tea bagger protests in courthouses. I work in oil & gas and I happened to be courthouse hopping that day. You are correct in that it is a "politically diverse" group of people. When I say this, and this is from my own personal experience, there are a bunch of 1-issue voters. The signs were either about taxes, abortion/religion, or gun control. Your claim that there are people who voted for Obama and are tea-baggers is pretty "out there" in my opinion. You claim that the movement is culturally diverse is also "out there" in my opinion. I have not read the entire 12 pages in this thread, so forgive me if you've provided links/information to these claims. My work takes me to remote places where all I do is listen to conservative talk radio. I actually enjoy listening to differing opinions to mine. I don't like hanging around politically homogenous arenas because I'm a contrarian by nature. Conservative radio is an extremely powerful medium. I don't think we could stress that enough. I will say that it has been used for some unfortunate means and ends. Myself, and those who are politically different than those to the right, have a bad tastes in our mouths from years of "swift-boating", hate-mongering (see Obama election) and fear-mongering (see RNC and the use of 9/11). This can be seen on this board by searching Trader_Jorge threads. I think this boils down why tea baggers are automatically seen in a negative light. One side really dislikes the way yall have acted in the past and the other side tends to rally around their selective cause in a very passionate manner. Allowing signs with Obama dressed like an african shaman/chief, references to Nazi Germany, mocking the death of Ted Kennedy, socialist/fascist/communist/flavor-of-the-month-ist claims, and threating violence (we come unarmed, this time) is going to further push you away from moderates and intellectuals. You may verbally say "that's unfortunate, but there will always be nuts", but it's not enough. There are still many people who believe that Obama is a Muslim (don't ya think that would be insulting to a Muslim person anyways?) non-citizen with an agenda to strip every freedom that makes us American. This is flat out silly and I won't respect that opinion. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be a check on the democratic party. We saw how Republicans botched a massive surplus when they had control of everything and we don't want a single party dominated government digging a deeper hole. In all, it appears that there is no singular voice/point to the tea baggers. It's just a bunch of sign-making and finger pointing that say "he's evil and will destroy us." What I'd like to see from tea-baggers to be more respectable: 1. Be more outspoken about denouncing the fringe in your group. 2. Act more respectable to the president. (tied in to #1) 3. Stop saying that Obama raised taxes for most Americans. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/obama-has-cut-taxes-for-986-percent-of.html ) 4. Stop saying the stimulus did nothing. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html ) 5. Stop worshipping Reagan. He did raise taxes... twice(http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/business/the-push-and-pull-over-taxes.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all )
If above is correct then IMO the Tea Party change their name. If that's the case. 98% of Americans are actually paying less now under Obama compared to previous presidents. They cannot continue using the slogan "Taxed Enough Already". They a fraud/sham/no credibility unless they change their name to something representative of who they really are.
I think it goes beyond that. It appears to me that a lot of Repub/Con policy positions are taken not for the merits, but simply to piss liberals off or to expressly do the opposite of what Dems would do regardless of the consequences. You watch the teabaggers and you can't help but pick up on a bit of glee that comes from thinking they're pissing Liberals off. as you noted, you can see that in any BT or TJ or basso thread/comment... they are written in way that they hope offends other people. There may be legitimate conservatives out there. Maybe there are sincere Republicans. However, so much of the current Repub/Con ideology today is built on opposition and the image the leaders and most vocal supporters present is just flat out negative. That they are able to manipulate a good chunk of the American public is disgusting. thumbs, if people like you really do exist, then take back your party from the charlatans. We'd all be better off.
Rhad, rimrocker and Franchise2001, I am going to address your concerns simultaneously because they are similar in commentary and viewpoint. Rimrocker, there is a huge reservoir of moderate conservatives and moderate liberals out there in the Tea Party movement (it really is a movement) who are absolutely dead tired of bomb-throwing politics. Unfortunately, we tend to be less vocal, and, as I have stated before, nuttiness sells -- that is, the media eats it up and that's why you get a constant elecgtronic diet oi it. It doesn't help that the media really doesn't care to dig deeper because the nuttiness "proves" their bias. Unfortunately, the great bulk of Tea Party members refuse to refrain from "confrontational politics" because the popular feeling is that there is no other choice. There is noticeable glee, as you point out, from irritating liberals. I agree with you that this is counter-productive, but I also confess that I have succumbed to the temptation on occasion. As far as taking back the Republican Party, I'm working fast as I can on that along with a similar precinct by precinct campaign within the Democratic Party. I'm not kidding when I tell people that "pressing the flesh" politics is the oldest contact sport in United States history. Franchise2001, Obama suffers from the same type of vicious denigration that was inflicted on Bush. Neither is right and neither can be justified on the basis of "payback" or "what goes around comes around." Obama has not helped himself with the people he as appointed as his "czars" and aides. Glenn Beck has struck a motherlode of suspicious as he points out their backgrounds and tapes of their attacks on America and its core values. Ignoring Fox News is a big mistake on Obama's part, because a huge segment of listeners are independents and moderates, the very voters Obama will need to get re-elected and to move his bills through Congress. Personally, I do not approve of any news station taking an political stance from a hard news standpoint. That does a terrible disservice to the the nation as a whole. However, people see NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC as well as the big newspapers tossing obvious softballs and blowing kisses to Obama, and that makes them turn to an alternate view. Enter Fox News. Rhadamanthus, I do not mean to justify the fear that Obama inspires in the Tea Party community. However, because it is a factor, I am compelled to point it out and try to help you understand the rationale for it. As with all people, the more you call them fools or other names, the more you tend to harden them into an ultimately intransigent position. I never tell my group members that they are wrong. I try to give them alternatives to think about. I have always found that people become more moderate and more open-minded when they believe they themselves are separating the facts from the fictions. However, that's just me. The Tea Party members with whom I am familiar are proud that they carved out their own little niches in this world through creating a business or rising through the business and professional ranks. There is a bias against give-aways to people they feel should be working their way up instead of looking for "hand-outs." Now, this is not a viewpoint, I entirely share, but I am trying to explain where they are coming from (pardon my 60s lingo). Again, that's where dialogue leads to enlightenment. But, again, that's just me.
This isn't related to what has come before in this thread. But since it is related and I find it interesting, here it is. For me it kind of describes in a microcosm the dynamic of the teabaggers and the non-teabaggers and the way they relate to each other. <object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=200909180028'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=200909180028' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object> <object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=200909180056'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=200909180056' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>
I know quite a few tea partiers. Virtually none are moderate. Heck, you might be the only one I know - and you exist (to me) only in cyberspace. Sorry - this illicits no pity from me, and only further induces me to question why you would associate with such troglodytes when all they do is sully whatever "pure" effort you have in mind. Ummmm. What? Attacks on America? Core values? Please tell me you are not serious. You've got some logical diconnects if you're referencing Glenn Beck in the same essay that posits a "huge reservoir of moderate conservatives and moderate liberals" as tea partying types. Highly doubt that. I don't think Obama is counting on Fox News listeners for reelection. Please. Yet you just referenced Glenn Beck. 1) Not true necessarily. 2) Dumbest argument for spreading lies and inciting hatred ever. So far the rationale appears to be non-factual "attacks on america and its core values" or petty irritation at Obama's popularity. I guess I'm not interested in "understanding" that. No argument, but that does not mean I'm ready to go out and march around the capitol with a pack of those same fools either. Most of that sentiment is misplaced, greedy, and (ironically) counterproductive to their own interests. All three of those facets are being intentionally fed fuel from those who actually do stand to gain if policy compromises are defeated. I would be happy to expound upon this further if you are interested.
thumbs, I sympathize to a point. But there is no comparison, fact by fact, between, say NBC & CNN, when compared to Fox. The documented distortions and intentional mis-statements, the documented ties to a political party, are just astounding on the Fox "News" side of this. Their business model is brilliant, but I would argue corrosive (and I argue the same thing with most MSNBC work): anger your audience, addict them emotionally to a "villain," (my step-mother-in-law literally YELLS at her TV everytime Fox shows Obama at all), and thereby greatly increase the hours they spend watching your network and your advertisers. It is pure exploitative business, with great support from one political party. And it hurts our ability to discuss anything, as people end up talking about czars and other phony issues instead of any substance or data or solutions.
I don't know why you guys are humoring this tool, he just repeats whatever he wants to believe as the truth again and again, especially when he knows its wrong in order to annoy you. Then he wraps up with some manufactured humility and pretend offense (like he pretends to have supported Obama). It's basically a better version of what giddyup tries to do. This predates this tea party dogsh-t by many years. Actually not a bad act, I award him very positive troll points and declare him the winner of this thread over batman's tea party pledge thread.
To compare the denigration that Bush received vs the hatred that Obama is getting are two totally different animals. We had the insane 2000 election that was decided by Florida. Then we had the 2001 rally around the flag effect where virtually every american was behind Bush to get back at Al Qaeda. Then we had Katrina, misleading the American people into Iraq, "mission accomplished", "for or against us", Haliburton bidding process, his grand finale in not leading during the market crash, waterboarding and I'm sure we'll find more out as we go. I'm sorry to say, but Bush kinda deserved the negative press. This is probably a factor in why the right is so angry. It appears that we are entering a cycle of violence. Right hates Clinton, left hates Bush, right hates Obama... and so on. What has Obama done that is even remotely close to what Bush did to deserve the "denigration?" Glen Beck is the biggest tool, douchebag, fearmongering, hatemongering, lying sack of fecal excrement there is on the right wing media. He makes Rush, who is scary in his own right, look like a care bear. I feel sorry for those who trust his words and truly doubt their mental capacity and intelligence. This is my attempt at being civil when talking about Glen Beck... sorry for failing as it's not meant to be an attempt to not be civil with you. As far as the other news agencies that "blow kisses" at Obama... ok... we still have other problems like getting a ton of people back to work. Personally, I don't care for such programming. Anyhow, where did his czars attack core American values? By calling Republicans a$$holes? I'd say that's free speech. Obama has more important things to do than defend himself from every Fox news attack. We no longer live in the days of the right can accuse while the left squirms to defend (Kerry v. Swiftboaters). If Tea Partygoers want to make ridiculous accusations like "YOU LIE!!!" we are going to call you out for said ridiculous statements. Screaming and running in circles doesn't make you look cool.
From one cyberspaceman to another, I reference Glenn Beck, not because I favor him as a champion, but because, like it or not, he is a factor in the Tea Party movement. The same goes for Fox News, which is too far to the right just as the others I mentioned are too partisan as well. Media -- all media -- should be scratching at every politico's door when even the hint of bad odor wafts out into the air. What? Attacks on America? Core values? As to your comments here, that is how Glenn Beck nailed the former Green Czar, something Jones, apparently by showing a littany of his taped speeches espousing communism. Personally, I am usually too busy to watch Beck. I prefer hard news anyway.
The only video I saw of Van Jones was him calling Republican's a-holes... please, prove that he's currently a communist.
As I said in a prior post, I personally am dismayed when a news medium of any type shows preference for one side or another. Columnists are allowed because it is known that they are providing an opinion. News people don't have that privilege IMO. One of my cousins must know your mother-in-law. He does the same. I had to kick him out of my Tea Party group because he would not adhere to basic tenets of decorum in the network chat.
