More tea baggers

[Conan71]

The Tea Party is a loose group whose unifying principal really is hatred of government in general and hatred of Obama in particular. Some of that hate is positively race based. Certainly a great deal, if not most of that hate is policy driven but the extreme kind of hate and irrational statements made by the leaders of the movement even if not racial based is harmful to the country and probably nearly unelectable in most states. Republicans under Reagan knew what they were for as much as they knew what they were against, this current group can't agree on anything more substantial than gross generalities like "smaller government and less taxes".

I think you need to relook at the Tea Party groups. Look at the letter I posted from one of the founders and leaders of one of, if not the main large Tea Party group, the one the Palin has made a bunch of her speaking engagements with. The Governor of Texas has advocated succession and then there's Michelle Bachmann, a real nut job who is now taking more formal leadership role, as said in the article above. Here is a nice rational quote from her "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps.", that's stupid and meant to scare the sheep into thinking Obama is going to start rounding people up into camp. What about some of what Palin has said? How about her "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil"? Death panels, really?

This crap isn't coming from the fringe of the Tea Party groups, it's front and center.

Williams has been jettisoned as undesireable in the Tea Party ranks, so I think that speaks clearly that racist sentiment or anything which can be construed as such by bed-wetting liberals won't be tolerated.

Name one politician who doesn't use fear to gain or retain power, or to pass a controversial measure.  I seriously doubt you can.  That's a large part of politics: exploiting fear for gain. 

How do you think we got Obamacare? "How many more people need to die before we pass this?" 
The stimulus? "Worst economy since the Great Depression". 
TARP: "Banks and insurance companies will collapse taking your savings"
The Iraq war: "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." (No less than former President Clinton joined the chorus telling Larry King there was no doubt there were unaccounted for WMD the day he left office.)

The claims and accusations by the left tells me they are incredibly fearful of the Tea Party sentiment otherwise they would not be working so hard to discredit and distort what most of these people seem to believe in by citing the only examples who make the case for Tea Partiers being far right gun-hugging nut jobs. 

And for the record I'm a gun-hugger but not a gun-hugging nut-job. 

[rwarn17588]

The goals to reduce spending, end corruption, and promote individual freedom over government control has become the common sentiment of the general public (both Democrat and Republican).

OK, that brings up interesting questions ...

If you reduce spending in a cash-strapped economy, does the Tea Party realize it will deepen the recession?

These questions should be asked: What employment rate will you tolerate in return for less government spending? 15%? 20%? 30%?

How much longer should a deep recession go in return for less government spending?

Do you want troops out of Afghanistan to lessen defense spending?

Do you want fewer Medicare benefits when you're older?

Those are the big questions that no one really wants to contemplate. But if you're going to be serious about government cuts, you'll have to consider them.

As for corruption, that's been a problem since our republic began. I've read enough history books to realize this is not new, and that it requires a lot of vigilance to nominally control it. SSDD.

As for individual freedoms, what exactly has been lost in recent years? Last I checked, you can still travel all over this country anytime or anywhere you wish. You can still go to any church you please. You can still write letters to the editor or post on Internet forums. If you've got money, you can buy just about any lawful product there is out there. And, in recent, months the right to bear arms has been strengthened, not weakened.

I keep hearing about a loss of freedom, but where?

[guido911]

I think if you check I also mention Mark Williams and the Governor of Texas (Rick Perry, not a woman)

But nice shift on the argument without addressing any material facts.

I saw your reference to Perry, just not on MY page of this thread. As for your "material" facts, show me one. You and others are pi$$ed about a freakin billboard and one guy's letter and paint with the broadest brush imaginable that the tea partiers are racist. Well back at you. All you Palin/Bachman (and other women who dare to voice an opinion against Obama) haters, you are misogynists. See how easy that works?

As for me, I attended two "tea parties" last year and I can say with a measurable degree of certainty that I have done more to vindicate the rights of minorities and women that you could ever hope.  But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, I couldn't give a bigger smile.

[Conan71]

OK, that brings up interesting questions ...

If you reduce spending in a cash-strapped economy, does the Tea Party realize it will deepen the recession?

These questions should be asked: What employment rate will you tolerate in return for less government spending? 15%? 20%? 30%?

How much longer should a deep recession go in return for less government spending?

Do you want troops out of Afghanistan to lessen defense spending?

Do you want fewer Medicare benefits when you're older?

Those are the big questions that no one really wants to contemplate. But if you're going to be serious about government cuts, you'll have to consider them.

As for corruption, that's been a problem since our republic began. I've read enough history books to realize this is not new, and that it requires a lot of vigilance to nominally control it. SSDD.

As for individual freedoms, what exactly has been lost in recent years? Last I checked, you can still travel all over this country anytime or anywhere you wish. You can still go to any church you please. You can still write letters to the editor or post on Internet forums. If you've got money, you can buy just about any lawful product there is out there. And, in recent, months the right to bear arms has been strengthened, not weakened.

I keep hearing about a loss of freedom, but where?

Not all government spending creates jobs nor improves our economy. 

There's sentiment about loss of freedom when people start to fear they cannot use the health care plan they've become accustomed to due to government mandate.  Redistribution of wealth is seen as a loss of freedom when the government can simply decide to raise taxes at any time with minimal discussion or input from the public and confiscate legally-earned income.

Finally, us gun-huggers always fear jack-booted government thugs showing up at our doors to ask for our assault rifles every time a Democrat becomes President. I think it's a basic rule of gun ownership

[rwarn17588]

Not all government spending creates jobs nor improves our economy. 

There's sentiment about loss of freedom when people start to fear they cannot use the health care plan they've become accustomed to due to government mandate.  Redistribution of wealth is seen as a loss of freedom when the government can simply decide to raise taxes at any time with minimal discussion or input from the public and confiscate legally-earned income.

1) More money in a cash-strapped economy is a good thing. This is Economics 101.

2) The "sentiment" doesn't match reality. The health-care law allows people to keep their current health plans.

3) What tax-rate raise are you referring to? Tax rates were dropped during the last stimulus bill. Where is this redistribution of wealth that you speak?

[rwarn17588]

But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, I couldn't give a bigger smile.

TulsaNow's censor machine puts out inadvertently funny stuff once in a while. 

[guido911]

Not all government spending creates jobs nor improves our economy. 

You sure as smile got that right:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJnwMBE7xMJZVNt_R997OWO3fIVQD9H1O0JG3

[rwarn17588]

As for me, I attended two "tea parties" last year and I can say with a measurable degree of certainty that I have done more to vindicate the rights of minorities and women that you could ever hope.

In that case, let's have a detailed accounting of what you've actually done.

[swake]

I saw your reference to Perry, just not on MY page of this thread. As for your "material" facts, show me one. You and others are pi$$ed about a freakin billboard and one guy's letter and paint with the broadest brush imaginable that the tea partiers are racist. Well back at you. All you Palin/Bachman (and other women who dare to voice an opinion against Obama) haters, you are misogynists. See how easy that works?

As for me, I attended two "tea parties" last year and I can say with a measurable degree of certainty that I have done more to vindicate the rights of minorities and women that you could ever hope.  But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, I couldn't give a bigger smile.

My material facts are quotes from Tea Party leaders spouting the kind of stupid crap that used to only live on the fringes of the political spectrum. Not just a single person here and there, but from the founder of the one of the largest Tea Party groups, the governor of Texas, the most recent Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate and a congressional Tea Party leader. These aren't just individual idiots with signs in a crowd or some stupid back bench congressman, these are actual leaders of the Tea Party movement and now the Republican Party.

And lets be very clear, I am not saying that all Tea Party people are racists, nor am I saying that you are racist. I am saying that when you base a movement on hate and anger, it's not surprising that some elements of that group are going to be racists. The Black Power movement is rife with them as can be seen in the "New" Black Panthers. That you can't accept that there are many racists involved with the Tea Party movement including some leaders (as documented in that letter) shows how far to the fringe you personally are.

What I am specifically saying is that many, probably most people in the Tea Party movement are there for real policy disagreements, these would be your engaged and hard core, more serious conservatives. Many more are there because they have been scared by all this inflammatory, stupid and sophomoric rhetoric, these would be your sheeple. But then there are some there out of only hate, some racial hate, some people that just hate taxes (often people caught for cheating on taxes) and then also a good deal of people that also just hate government, though that movement very often overlaps with the people that hate based on race.

It's up to the serious conservatives to take control of the movement, to quickly shun idiots and their groups like Mark Williams (as was done by that one umbrella group, good for them) and to also call on idiots like Perry and Bachmann tone down the rhetoric to be more honest and more realistic and constructive in tone. Then and only then will the Tea Party have a real chance as a real constructive conservative political movement. Until then the Tea Party movement is only are going to hurt the Republican Party in the long term.

[guido911]

This what racism really looks like:

[nathanm]

You sure as smile got that right:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJnwMBE7xMJZVNt_R997OWO3fIVQD9H1O0JG3

Interestingly, GM has kept all the dealers that were worth anything, despite the initial plan to close them.

And Conan, you forget that the Republicans do exactly the same thing to Democrats. You guys pretty much only talk about the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

[guido911]

In that case, let's have a detailed accounting of what you've actually done.

I do not need to lay out my creds to the likes of you. But if it makes you feel better, I have represented numerous minorities, women, the elderly, and disabled in federal civil rights and discrimination cases and obtained relief for them. Now, tell us what you have done. Seriously, other than gripe, tell us how you have rolled up your sleeves and really done something to advance the rights of others.

[Gaspar]

OK, that brings up interesting questions ...

If you reduce spending in a cash-strapped economy, does the Tea Party realize it will deepen the recession?

I think it's the type of spending currently in question.  It's also long term program spending vs short term stimulus in the form of incentives.

These questions should be asked: What employment rate will you tolerate in return for less government spending? 15%? 20%? 30%?

See above.

How much longer should a deep recession go in return for less government spending?

See above.

Do you want troops out of Afghanistan to lessen defense spending?

Yes.  At least I do, as do most Libertarians and we have that in common with the Tea Party group.  70% of our spending goes to military endeavors and support.  We need a strong military, but our current operations in Afghanistan is nothing more than a token.  Without the ability to truly engage our enemies, or even identify them for what they are, we cannot fight them.  It has become a politically correct war, and will therefore be more expensive in life and resources.  We are not ferocious.  We have lost our teeth.  We do not know our enemy, because to do so would be discriminatory. 

It is not acceptable to be proactive, therefore we are simply forced to react, and we cannot win a war that way.

Do you want fewer Medicare benefits when you're older?

Yes.  The system is currently unsustainable and bankrupt.  A percentage of the medical fees I pay now go to take up the slack for the ridiculous reimbursement rates that physicians and hospitals have to make up for from accepting Medicare.  Each citizen will pay hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars into the system and only reap a fraction of that in actual care.

Those are the big questions that no one really wants to contemplate. But if you're going to be serious about government cuts, you'll have to consider them.

That's right.  Both parties are going to have to wrestle this alligator, because if we don't, we will destroy ourselves.

As for corruption, that's been a problem since our republic began. I've read enough history books to realize this is not new, and that it requires a lot of vigilance to nominally control it. SSDD.

As for individual freedoms, what exactly has been lost in recent years? Last I checked, you can still travel all over this country anytime or anywhere you wish. You can still go to any church you please. You can still write letters to the editor or post on Internet forums. If you've got money, you can buy just about any lawful product there is out there. And, in recent, months the right to bear arms has been strengthened, not weakened.

Not so much the loss but the threat of loss.  There are things that we know about the current administration.  If they could pass a single payer medical system NOW, they would.  If they could tighten restrictions on the second amendment NOW, they would.  If they could regulate more sectors of the economy NOW, they would.  If they could intact an amnesty program in exchange for votes NOW, they would. 

I keep hearing about a loss of freedom, but where?

[rwarn17588]

You had thoughtful responses until you got here:

Not so much the loss but the threat of loss.  There are things that we know about the current administration.  If they could pass a single payer medical system NOW, they would.  If they could tighten restrictions on the second amendment NOW, they would.  If they could regulate more sectors of the economy NOW, they would.  If they could intact an amnesty program in exchange for votes NOW, they would. 

You're basing your response on conjecture instead of facts. The administration said from the beginning of the health-care debate that single-payer was not a requirement for passage. The regulation of the economy has been prudent, common-sense measures that were discussed by both parties before the 2008 elections. Gun-control also never was an Obama agenda item. And amnesty to illegal immigrants has received bipartisan support, and was started first by a Republican president.

You've got certain wide-eyed elements that see the president as a radical, where most rightly see him as a cautious, moderate president.

[rwarn17588]

I do not need to lay out my creds to the likes of you. But if it makes you feel better, I have represented numerous minorities, women, the elderly, and disabled in federal civil rights and discrimination cases and obtained relief for them. Now, tell us what you have done. Seriously, other than gripe, tell us how you have rolled up your sleeves and really done something to advance the rights of others.

Dude, you're the one who claimed to have been such a champion of minorities. I asked for specifics. You provided none. How do I know you're not just blowing smoke?