Well put and I've said before if you want the Tea Party movement to be taken seriously part of that is addressing how your message is presented. While you might blame the media for focussing on the extremists consider the extremists by nature are the ones demanding the most attention. That's no different than a protest demanding more green energy that the media will focus on the guys wearing bandanas over their faces carrying signs saying "F^ck the System!" than the guys with signs saying "More Funding for Solar Power"
I'm for a sane, step-by-step approach to going green -- especially using solar and wind until we can get nuclear back on track. Where I have a problem is when protesters turn violent and start throwing rocks and rolling dumpters downhill into police. As I have said, I'm not happy with some of the signage at Tea Parties, but there has been no violence, especially on the scale of the radical G-20 protesters.
To be fair, the G-20 protests have drawn the same crowd no matter where they have happened. The ones in Seattle in the early '90s were violent, as has been the case with these protests all over the world. Again, to be fair, these protestors (the violent ones) have also been a tiny minority of the overall protests, much like you say the extremists in the Tea Parties are.
At the moment but the Tea Partiers have been promissing violence even showing up armed. Would you be comfortable if G-20 protestors showed up with firearms?
There is a difference between "posturing" and "commission." The first is not only undesireable but very child-like. The second ventures into the criminal arena.
Don't misconstrue this as support for tea partiers, but one person with one sign saying they'll come armed next time is hardly representative of the throngs of people that were there.
True and on the same note those carrying out violence at the G-20 are probably not representative of the throngs that were there.
I have come to realize that Tea Partiers are in fact a diverse group. They have guys who are pro-life, the NRA folks, White Supremacists, and of course, right-wing republicans and fox news devotees. I'm sorry. The Tea-Partiers are nothing more than the same hate-filled right wingers that went after Clinton. They planned this before Obama was even in serious contention for office - this was supposed to be a gift for Hillary if she won. Had McCain won, none of these folks would be protesting the big gov't and 35 "Czars" he had. It's just right-wing ludicrousness. Want to know why the crowds are so homogenous? Don't think so hard. It's because it represents the most intolerant hyper-partisans of the right. These folks simply hate the left and don't care about facts, they are just upset that Obama is president and that Republicans lost both houses. Instead of attacking the officials who won the elections because they aren't happy with the result, they need to look at their own party and start thinking about electing people who actually can appeal to more than their little extreme base. Of course, they are too narrow-minded to do that. Do I sound Elitist or Arrogant? Who cares, compared to these idiots, everyone is a freaking genius.
via TPM -- #TeaPartyFail "If this is organized, we suck," lamented one tea partier. Tea Party organizers sent out an alert for a "flash mob" or tea partiers to crash this morning's House health care bill unveiling. Alas, only about ten people showed up.
The time for turning out in protest is over. The time for turning out the vote is here. The movement is evolving.
Yes, Phase II, as it were. I want to give you a chance again to answer a couple of basic questions. They do not involve race at all. 1. If McCain were president, and he had proposed a stimulus plan of similar magnitude, and he had proposed fixing our teetering healthcare system (charging the Congress to draft a bill), would you and the other tea-party members be organizing tea parties? 2. If Hillary were president... same question. 3. Where were these protests when Bush II was clearly running up debt and nationalizing banks, etc? I would truly predit: (1) No, (2) Yes, and (3) We were not as worried with a republican administration. But feel free to challenge those assumptions. Seriously.
Those are what I would assume the real answers are. However, I expect a "Yes" to the first one to try and legitimize themselves.
Yes. Yes. Already answered, but yes. However, no other candidate, not even Hillary, would have taken the country so far afield from its basic principles.
