• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tea Party Convention

cwalner said:
...

The Tea Party convention invited Farah to speak at thier convention. Not only that, they gave him the keynote spot for the night. To claim that his views are not at least somewhat representative of the party as a whole is just denial.
Click to expand...

AGREED...it wasn't like no one was aware of the man's agenda. They said several times how Worldnetdaily.com was THE BEST internet news site EVER...if they'd bothered to look at the site, there'd have been no doubt what he would likely say...

They knew what Farah is all about, but my point was that he got big applause from his birther ranting from the conventioneers.
 
cwalner said:
Sporanox, you keep bringing this up in various forms to distance Farah from the Tea Party, but I must say, that quite frankly, you are wrong, and it is is very fair to link them.
Click to expand...

I said equate them, which I believe is a difference worth noting. Breitbart doesn't deserve to be tarred by Farah.

As for the Tea Party convention at large, yes, there are a number of wingnuts in it - as I have noted before. The question is, though, what is the Tea Party's (not just the convention attendees) proportion of wingnuts?
 
Sporanox said:
I said equate them, which I believe is a difference worth noting. Breitbart doesn't deserve to be tarred by Farah.

As for the Tea Party convention at large, yes, there are a number of wingnuts in it - as I have noted before. The question is, though, what is the Tea Party's (not just the convention attendees) proportion of wingnuts?
Click to expand...

I came late to the thread and only quoted your most recent post, but you had previously posted these, to which I was also responding

Sporanox said:
I almost want to throttle the idiot that let anyone from WND on the stage. That would be the surest way to torpedo the entire movement. Fortunately, Breitbart went head to head with him in public.

(Having said that, this convention isn't really representative of the actual Tea Party, so fortunately it's not too big of a deal)
Click to expand...
This is one I am particularly curious about. If somebody made a similar comment about a keynote speaker at a GOP or DNC convention, nobody would dispute how foolish of a statement it was. If a convention is not representative of a political party, then what is?

Sporanox said:
I don't think you should look at the convention (and, specifically, the founder of WND) as representative of people who call themselves "Tea Partiers."
Click to expand...
Again, this is just plain wrong. One of the primary purposes of a political party's convention is to work out and express to the both the members and the public what its platform is. The second part is achieved by who you choose to speak at your convention, especially the keynote speakers.

If the Democrats had booked a 9-11 truther to be a keynote speaker at either the 2004 or 2008 conventions and he railed about 9-11 being an inside job to loud applause then it would have been very fair to link the Democratic Party to 9-11 truth.

For good or for ill, the Tea Party has now publically and oficially linked itself to the Birthers.
 
cwalner said:
I came late to the thread and only quoted your most recent post, but you had previously posted these, to which I was also responding


This is one I am particularly curious about. If somebody made a similar comment about a keynote speaker at a GOP or DNC convention, nobody would dispute how foolish of a statement it was. If a convention is not representative of a political party, then what is?


Again, this is just plain wrong. One of the primary purposes of a political party's convention is to work out and express to the both the members and the public what its platform is. The second part is achieved by who you choose to speak at your convention, especially the keynote speakers.

If the Democrats had booked a 9-11 truther to be a keynote speaker at either the 2004 or 2008 conventions and he railed about 9-11 being an inside job to loud applause then it would have been very fair to link the Democratic Party to 9-11 truth.

For good or for ill, the Tea Party has now publically and oficially linked itself to the Birthers.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party is not a party the way the GOP is. Initially, it was a group of protesters united by their dislike by big-government spending. Thus, any top-down action by one group out of several promoting Tea Parties (Tea Party Nation) is, in fact, not what all Tea Partiers are like or what their priorities are. Some news coverage has noted as such.

EDIT:

The conclusion is that if this convention is taken to represent all TPers, Tea Party Nation will have successfully hijacked the original purpose of the movement.
 
Last edited:
cwalner said:
...

If the Democrats had booked a 9-11 truther to be a keynote speaker at either the 2004 or 2008 conventions and he railed about 9-11 being an inside job to loud applause then it would have been very fair to link the Democratic Party to 9-11 truth.

For good or for ill, the Tea Party has now publically and oficially linked itself to the Birthers.
Click to expand...

Good point, well said.
 
Sporanox said:
The Tea Party is not a party the way the GOP is. Initially, it was a group of protesters united by their dislike by big-government spending. Thus, any top-down action by one group out of several promoting Tea Parties (Tea Party Nation) is, in fact, not what all Tea Partiers are like or what their priorities are. Some news coverage has noted as such.

EDIT:

The conclusion is that if this convention is taken to represent all TPers, Tea Party Nation will have successfully hijacked the original purpose of the movement.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, this just reeks of No True Scottsman.

I am in a situation where I am a social liberal, but an economic conservative. In my younger days, the social was more important, so I was a proudly registered Democrat. Now, as I get older, I find my financial concerns tend to take priority. However, as a gay man I cannot reconcile myself with the GOP's anti-gay platforms. I do not believe that this platform represents the views of every member of the GOP, but it still remains the official platform of the party and every member tacitly agrees to that platform with thier membership. As such, I tend to vote for mostly Republicans, but until the GOP changes that platform I will not support them with my membership or contributions until they change that platform. I am presently unaffiliated with any party for this reason.

Similarly at its convention, the Tea Party has made birtherism an official platform. All of its members who disagree with that face the same dilemma that I do. How they decide it is up to them and each will decide for him/her self. You seem to be facing that dilemma, but are choosing instead to rationalize it. If you beleive as strongly as you seem to in thier fiscal message and that is what is most important to you, be honest. Accept that counting yourself amongst them has an unpleasant drawback, but that your beleif in thier overall message is more important. No party will perfectly match any individual's politics. If you believe that overall the Tea Party message is positive, support it, but be honest with yourself that by doing so you are giving tacit approval to platforms (less important to you) that you disagree with. That is currently what every Democrat and Republican in the USA has to do.
 
cwalner said:
I'm sorry, but in my book inviting a Keynote speaker known for one particular issue and having him speak on that issue at your convention is officially making it a platform of your party.
Click to expand...

At issue is the definition used - "Tea Partier" to refer to anyone who protests the Obama Administration's spending policies, or "Tea Partier" as a member of an actual party with an actual platform.

Since only one of the various TP organizations sponsored the convention and ran the show, how do you justify your definition?
 
cwalner said:
I'm sorry, but in my book inviting a Keynote speaker known for one particular issue and having him speak on that issue at your convention is officially making it a platform of your party.
Click to expand...

They also invited Andrew Breitbart who went nuclear on Farah for his birtherism at the convention.

Which kinda blows your whole argument out of the water.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
They also invited Andrew Breitbart who went nuclear on Farah for his birtherism at the convention.

Which kinda blows your whole argument out of the water.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't.

The keynote speaker got huge applause for his birther rant...

No one but Breitbart openly disagreed with Farah.

ETA:

Had the audience booed at the birther comments I think you'd have a case.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Except that it doesn't.

The keynote speaker got huge applause for his birther rant...

No one but Breitbart openly disagreed with Farah.

ETA:

Had the audience booed at the birther comments I think you'd have a case.
Click to expand...

This was about the platform, and now it's about the audience? I believe you're moving your goalposts.
 
Despite all the crowing by some here that the Tea Party is essentially a fiscally conservative movement, I think the social/religious conservatives are going to (if they haven't already) make a big power play to take it over. The closing comments of the TP Convention, as well as Palin's appearance, underscores this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I get a strong sense of deja vu. Let's not forget how the socially conservative wing of the GOP took over and killed the Reform Party in the late 90s. I'm thinking we're going to see a repeat.
 
I don't know about the question of whether the birther position is an official plank in the Tea Party platform, but this discussion points out the same problem I've been noting for a while.

That is, whenever you point to something absolutely ludicrous being said in the name of the Tea Party, the response is always that that ludicrous stuff (or the person making it) isn't the real Tea Party.

Is it impossible to criticize the Tea Party for anything? If it stands for nothing in particular, then what good is it?

(And lest someone say that they can agree that all Tea Partisans are angry at wasteful, pork-barrel big government, please read the couple of posts here. Here a Tea Party defender (FlamingMoe) is answering the question, "where are the teabaggers to protest this grab for pork-barrel spending?" by saying essentially that there's nothing wrong with spending as long as it's legally apportioned by Congress!)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't know about the question of whether the birther position is an official plank in the Tea Party platform, but this discussion points out the same problem I've been noting for a while.

That is, whenever you point to something absolutely ludicrous being said in the name of the Tea Party, the response is always that that ludicrous stuff (or the person making it) isn't the real Tea Party.

Is it impossible to criticize the Tea Party for anything? If it stands for nothing in particular, then what good is it?

(And lest someone say that they can agree that all Tea Partisans are angry at wasteful, pork-barrel big government, please read the couple of posts here. Here a Tea Party defender (FlamingMoe) is answering the question, "where are the teabaggers to protest this grab for pork-barrel spending?" by saying essentially that there's nothing wrong with spending as long as it's legally apportioned by Congress!)
Click to expand...


If you remember my thread from a while ago, I couldn't find anything that the Tea Parties actually stand for besides, "Obama baaaaddddd."

They stand for nothing except this. It is the only thing they are in any way consistent on and do not deny. Sure, they claim the fiscal thing, but with much contradicting evidence and outright denial.
 
King of the Americas said:
I'll concede that point.

Neither keynote speakers nor a convention's members set a party's platform...

...Wait, what are conventions for again?
Click to expand...

Oh, so the cheers as the Tea Party's new voting method?

JoetheJuggler said:
That is, whenever you point to something absolutely ludicrous being said in the name of the Tea Party, the response is always that that ludicrous stuff (or the person making it) isn't the real Tea Party.
Click to expand...

Well, they are Tea Party members. The question is, how many do they represent?

Sporanox said:
At issue is the definition used - "Tea Partier" to refer to anyone who protests the Obama Administration's spending policies, or "Tea Partier" as a member of an actual party with an actual platform.

Since only one of the various TP organizations sponsored the convention and ran the show, how do you justify your definition?
Click to expand...

Also, please keep this in mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom