[Truthout] Naomi Wolf: A different perspective on the Tea Party

Are you kidding me? The first sentence in durvasa's post is one of the sillier things I've read on this board and it is anything but accurate.

 

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dyLSstqMvH8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dyLSstqMvH8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Opposing Obama for a variety of reasons, very few based in anything that has actually happened or actually will happen, none of which are a general distrust of government. It is a specific opposition to Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

(BTW, I didn't mean that last post in a nasty way. I just thought you were way off base.)

 

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showpost.php?p=5260351&postcount=121

 

I think people do care about poverty. At the very least, they think of how much it would suck to be poor. The compulsion to greedily accumulate vast amounts of wealth is institutional, not genetic--and it may be counter-genetic. We are ingrained with the idea that somebody has to be poor--Better them than us!--instead of the all too obvious alternative way of thinking recognizing that the fewer of us who live in poverty, at a given time, the lower probability that we will somehow find ourselves among the ranks of the unfortunate.

 

I don't understand why everyone always tries to associate the Tea Party with Bush Supporters.. Most true conservatives I have talked to dislike the Bush era as much as the current Obama era. And the unrest really started towards the end of the Bush era with the first bailout package. So when Obama got in and there was bailout after bailout its when people got fed up and the media started covering it.

 

That's probably because, unlike the rest (less stupid, more sane) of the country, the TeaBaggers overwhelmingly approve of George W. Bush , even now.

you are sipping from the can of fail very early my sun.

 

That last sentence is interesting in light of the fact that the primary gripes in the original article you posted are things related to the War on Terror:

Using historical precedents, she explains how our government is mimicking those of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin through practices like surveillance of ordinary citizens, restricting the press, developing paramilitary forces and arbitrarily detaining people.

If these really are the gripes of the Tea Party, they should have absolutely hated the Republican Party for the war on terror stuff.

 

Durvasa, George W. Bush has a favorability rating of 58% among teabaggers - compared to 27% among the general population as a whole.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

You are telling me that it's inordinately low? I don't know as much about statistics as you, but I'd say that's a significant discrepancy.

If we estimate tea partiers as about 15% of the population, the comparison gets even worse. It would be something like 58% of Teabaggers favor GWB, while only 21% of nonTeabaggers do.

And this is not at all unexpected. The other 35% of the Teabaggers who don't approve of GWB are the hardcore Ron Paul-ist wingnuts who were too busy agitating about the money supply and casting ineffectual protest votes in solid red states to approve of GWB.

Why is any of this surprising to you?

 

I've always found it strange to criticize someone for hypocrisy. To me, its vilifying someone for changing their mind, or admitting they were wrong.

 

Depends if they have a reason for changing their mind, or if they do it simply because its a way to justify where they stand or because its politically popular.

For example, the GOP suddenly opposing the health care bill that they basically designed 10-15 years ago and implemented a few years back in MA isn't because they had a change of heart and suddenly no longer believe in those principles. It's because it was politically good to oppose it now that Democrats were trying to implement it.

Unless you consider politic just a game with no real consequences, people like that absolutely deserve to be criticized.

 

But your claim was that, had it not been for the War on Terror, Kerry would have won in a landslide. That means that these people were voting Republican specifically because of the national security policies, not despite them. Torture, detention, Patriot Act, etc - those were the national security issues up for debate in the 2004 election.

That goes back to the original argument - these guys are simply anti-Democrat and fit their views to match that. They are anti-detention, anti-fascist, etc when a Dem is in office, but when that was an actual issue in an election, they specifically voted FOR the guy who supported the issues they now claim to be against.

 

I submit, I think I posted my original compliment in haste.

 

Ahhh the blind partisanship on this board is infuriating. Until you learn that neither side represents your views, you will be led down the garden path.

What is the difference between Bush and Obama on:
Corporate bail outs.
The Patriot Act.
Decreasing civil liberties.
Increasing government debt.
Expanding the size and reach of the federal government.
Useless foreign wars.

Anything said by either side is rhetoric to lead you to believe that your side is right. The whole system has been captured by special interests. The oligarchs rule.