• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Let the Tea Party take over the GOP

"Let"?

Is it the general consensus here at the "James Randi Educational Foundation - a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" that the "Tea Party" is a bad thing?

If so, why is that?

[/B]."

(I had here included the wiki link for this "Tea Party movement" quote, but apparently I am not yet able to do so.)

What is objectionable in those bolded principles and ideals?

Do the "skeptics and critical thinkers" of JREF, to the contrary then, generally favor increased government spending, higher taxes, increase of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and opposition to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution?

Is the obvious general antipathy, disdain and contempt so loudly voiced for the "Tea Party" here at JREF because they are generally taken to be of a conservative/libertarian perspective and therefore must be attacked as the opposition to the Democratic Party?

Are the "skeptical critical-thinkers" here mostly loyal Democrats?

Because the Tea Party as it exists currently is not a grass roots organization - though it stole/co-opted one's that were just local butt hole conservatives after kicking out those who were reasonable consies.

Sal Russo (with Dick (quite appropriate) Army's nut group help) is the guy who got Republicker/ conservative funding to create the T.P. Express which became a conservative terror group bussing tea-baggers and paid agitators to go to and disrupt town meetings and similar.

May not be why others find them to be slime. Is why I do - and why they will never be anything but tea baggers to me.
 
Last edited:
Because the Tea Party as it exists currently is not a grass roots organization
That's what Nancy Pelosi says too but I'm skeptical.

- though it stole/co-opted one's that were just local butt hole conservatives after kicking out those who were reasonable consies.
People who were generally inactive got active, as far as I can tell. I don't know why this would necessitate claims of stealing or co-opting or kicking others out, unless the point is strictly opposition.

Sal Russo (with Dick (quite appropriate) Army's nut group help) is the guy who got Republicker/ conservative funding to create the T.P. Express which became a conservative terror group bussing tea-baggers and paid agitators to go to and disrupt town meetings and similar.
"Republicker"? "conservative terror group"?! "paid agitators"? What paid agitation? I have no doubt that there would certainly have been some big $ people involved. Where is this not true? That hardly justifies wholesale dismissal of millions of people or the ideas they seek to advocate, in my opinion. I do not understand such hostility as you demonstrate in your word selection already. Why is the Tea Party such a threat or is the Tea Party some threat? To who and why?

May not be why others find them to be slime. Is why I do - and why they will never be anything but tea baggers to me.
Do you really believe that those people are "slime"? Seriously? Do you oppose any of those stated philosophical positions of the Tea Party of "reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution"?
 
Do you oppose any of those stated philosophical positions of the Tea Party of "reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution"?

Got any specific policies and targets for these reductions? No-one I have seen yet has. Bumper stickers make for great slogans and signs but lousy government. And "philosophical positions" are not policy. Almost everyone agrees that many or all of those things are nice philosophically. But here in the real world many are either not possible or at odds with each other.
 
Got any specific policies and targets for these reductions? No-one I have seen yet has. Bumper stickers make for great slogans and signs but lousy government. And "philosophical positions" are not policy. Almost everyone agrees that many or all of those things are nice philosophically. But here in the real world many are either not possible or at odds with each other.
First things first. Do you oppose any of those stated philosophical positions?
 
Do you oppose any of those stated philosophical positions of the Tea Party of "reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution"?

does this include legalized slavery, only allowing white male land owners to vote, and not letting the people of the USA vote for Senators?
 
Last edited:
Is it the general consensus here at the "James Randi Educational Foundation - a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" that the "Tea Party" is a bad thing?

If so, why is that?

Wiki: "The Tea Party is a political movement that has sponsored locally and nationally coordinated protests opposing taxes and spending since early 2009 and has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. Its platform is explicitly populist and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian. It endorses reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution."

What is objectionable in those bolded principles and ideals??

Hard to lower taxes AND reduce the deficit unless you subscribe to what the senior Bush once called "voodoo economics." Extension of the junior Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans is estimated to add $700 billion to the deficit but the Tea partiers haven't much objected to that idea. Cutting government spending sounds very well until you get down to the ugly specifics of what gets cut. And bad economic times are the worst times to be making deep spending cuts. And I very much object to so-called originalist interpretation of the constitution. So yes, those principles are pretty objectionable to me.

Do the "skeptics and critical thinkers" of JREF, to the contrary then, generally favor increased government spending, higher taxes, increase of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and opposition to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution?

False dichotomy.
 
Last edited:
Are the "skeptical critical-thinkers" here mostly loyal Democrats?


Yes, absolutely. But they don't think so. They justify their behavior and tactics to themselves quite well.

In virtually every other subforum, there is no patience for emotional appeals, strawman beatdowns, muddying the water, personal attacks, implications of bias or racism.. all of that kind of stuff is out the window in order to get to the real truth of a matter.

But in politics subforum here, all of that, and more, is absolutely common practice. And somehow they are all just clueless to the fact that they do it. Whether they are going on and on about how stupid and racist tax party members are, or posting emotional appeals for health insurance because they can't get it for themselves.. It's just one logical fallacy after another. And it all flies in here.

And if you question it, you just get ridicule, and intolerance or outright hatred thrown your way for an unacceptable level of time, even if you are trying to just engage in debate on the subject at hand.

The hate when I said, but I'll say it again, and again and again. Most liberals are the least tolerant people I know. This is where they then tell me that tolerance doesn't mean "tolerant of everything". And that they can be considered "generally tolerant", while absolutely despising the right.

Rationalization. It's crazy how it can destroy otherwise intelligent minds.
 
Last edited:
Yes, absolutely. But they don't think so. They justify their behavior and tactics to themselves quite well.

In virtually every other subforum, there is no patience for emotional appeals, strawman beatdowns, muddying the water, personal attacks, implications of bias or racism.. all of that kind of stuff is out the window in order to get to the real truth of a matter.

But in politics subforum here, all of that, and more, is absolutely common practice. And somehow they are all just clueless to the fact that they do it. Whether they are going on and on about how stupid and racist tax party members are, or posting emotional appeals for health insurance because they can't get it for themselves.. It's just one logical fallacy after another. And it all flies in here.

And if you question it, you just get ridicule, and intolerance or outright hatred thrown your way for an unacceptable level of time, even if you are trying to just engage in debate on the subject at hand.

The hate when I said, but I'll say it again, and again and again. Most liberals are the least tolerant people I know. This is where they then tell me that tolerance doesn't mean "tolerant of everything". And that they can be considered "generally tolerant", while absolutely despising the right.

Rationalization. It's crazy how it can destroy otherwise intelligent minds.

Only if you question it when it's A) not happening or B) only when one side or the other does it.

You ignored perfectly good poisoning the well in the reply you quoted for example.

No, I'm not saying that if one doesn't call out every fallacy one's own side puts out one is wrong. I am questioning the assertion, "if you question it, you just get ridicule, and intolerance or outright hatred thrown your way for an unacceptable level of time, even if you are trying to just engage in debate on the subject at hand." People get called out for that sort of stuff all the time here in politics. If not as much as on the other sub boards, oh well.

People are very critical of the right on this sub forum. Some using valid reasoning and debate, some not. People are very critical of the left on this sub forum. Some using valid reasoning and debate, some not. If you want to write off the other side while ignoring the dunderheads on your own, guess what else needs called out.
 
Hmmm...

Maybe someone here can show me the undoubtedly limitless number of threads in which people from the left thoughtfully and intelligently de-construct every facet and plank of the tea party. Showing where their ideas are actually wrong. Giving solid reasoning and data to show how they are wrong, and why the other side of the argument is true. Basically disarming them 100%, logically and fairly.

Maybe someone here can show me the undoubtedly limitless number of threads that do the same to the ideas held by Sarah Palin. Why exactly she is wrong, what she is wrong about, all that kind of stuff. In intelligent deconstruction of her ideals and political positions. Factually.

Maybe someone can point me to the endless number of threads where liberals don't say anything about the other side at all! And instead they lay out the wonderful ideals of their political beliefs and how they work.. and why they work, and why it's important for us to adopt those policies. Without any resorting to instead telling us why the other side is evil and to be feared.

But be honest folks, those threads don't even exist. I defy someone to show me just one.

Instead, most threads are nothing but ridicule and ad hominem. Someone or another is a complete idiot! OMG, could this person be more dumb? <A> said <X>, OMG! STUPID!! The tea party is all racists! They are all stupid and racist? Did you hear me? I said they are stupid and racist! Why would you support that? What specifics? THEY ARE STUPID AND RACIST.

And not to mention other things, like every couple of months we can count on Travis to post a new thread about how he can't get health insurance, and how basically.. anyone that wants to stand in the way of his getting health insurance.. whoever they are.. whatever their stated reasons are.. we all know the truth. THEY WANT TRAVIS TO DIE! HORRIBLY! Pure emotional appeal that has no logical basis.

And I also haven't even begun to address the most insane and radical types, most extremely demonstrated by Lefty Sarge. Even people on his own side realize he's hopeless and don't try to convince him otherwise. But the man is a bile factory. Nothing but contempt and vitriolic personal assaults of the worst kind. He's an example of someone who is long gone in terms of any constructive debate. He actually is to the point that the ends justify the means, in his mind.

There are barely any Republican/conservative posters here at all. What few we've had have been rather nasty in their own right. Like Cicero, who got himself banned. But what do you know, I suspect we'll never see the likes of Lefty Sarge banned, when he is every bit as bad, or worse, for his own side.

This entire forum bears all the halmarks of the old "ivory towers" syndrome. It's mostly populated by leftists for whom everything they believe in is reality, long since proven as such, and anything against that is evil, stupid and dangerous. There is virtually no critical thinking or open debate on any subject. It's just a club where like minded people who all agree with each other routinely start new threads just lambasting and personally insulting people they disagree with. And they all back slap each other and high five each other in the process.

And I know that by now, some are even thinking "hey, even if alot of that is true, it's justifiable because the Republicans must be stopped". Its' the "ends justify the means" mentality. It's clear that all too many people on the left subscribe to this mentality. We see it daily, all throughout the world, where people don't take a subject on directly, but instead, discredit the person making the argument, and thereby feeling that they have also discredited the entire argument in the process. It's been the standard operating procedure with regards to Sarah Palin for sure.

And the place that this is most maddening to a conservative such as myself as that all these things you are convinced are forgone conclusions are the furthest from being that, in my world. There are a million things I see held up here as obviously correct that are 100% wrong. There are million ideals I see held up here that have been long since destroyed in terms of substance. But every day, I gotta try to read as people sit in their own little dream worlds, and spout inane nonsense as fact. I have to figure out how to reason with someone who's entire world is built on a foundation that is so flawed and separated from reality, there is virtually no hope of ever reasoning with them.

These forums absolutely have a liberal bias. But only in that the majority of people who use them are clearly liberal. And not willing at all to even entertain the idea they are wrong about anything.. let alone wrong about just about everything.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...

Maybe someone here can show me the undoubtedly limitless number of threads in which people from the left thoughtfully and intelligently de-construct every facet and plank of the tea party. Showing where their ideas are actually wrong. Giving solid reasoning and data to show how they are wrong, and why the other side of the argument is true. Basically disarming them 100%, logically and fairly.

(snip)

Stop reading lefty and start reading some of the other posters. I don't hold what BaC says against you, or 'the right' so I expect the same.

You ask for 100% logical and fairness from all the liberals on some specific thread? Too damn bad. I'm not responsible for what some other liberal says and you're not responsible for what some other conservative says.

There is plenty of rational, logical debate on this sub board. If you can cut through the large volume of crap, it's good stuff. It's better stuff than I have found on any other board.

The best irony is that you're doing just what you're accusing the evil liberals here on these boards of doing. You've not engaged in a rational debate at all. Worse, you're relying on the fallacy fallacy. They used a fallacy, and therefore they must be wrong.

And not willing at all to even entertain the idea they are wrong about anything.. let alone wrong about just about everything.

Pot, kettle, black.
 
First things first. Do you oppose any of those stated philosophical positions?

Yes, a couple. Reduced government spending That is a soundbite. I dont want government spending reduced, I want it justified. In some cases more government spending may be justified. It isn't always the spending, it is often what it is spent on.

You want lower taxes and to lower the debt? Good luck with that. You cant get rid of the debt solely through lowering spending.

This "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution? Does that include the 14th amendment, or just the ones you like? And who gets to decide what the original interpretation was? Anyway the TP needs to realize that the Constitution is not a holy document and the framers were not all seeing and infallible.

And as for "first things first" I have seen TPers asked in here what specific policies and plans the TP has in mind almost since it's inception. I have yet to see a coherent answer. So as far as first things first goes, that is first.

And if your plan for financial recovery if Rand Pauls gutting of every discretionary spending program while giving the military a light trim, forget it.

I listened to David Stockman, Budget Director under Reagan, the other night saying that America is in the financial mess it is in partly because we escalated and escalated our military spending during the Cold War to force Russia to go broke. They did and you know what America did? Kept right on spending and escalating the military at the same rate. That might be something to look at.
 
That's what Nancy Pelosi says too but I'm skeptical.

n"?
Paid agitators was proved by newsagencies , sol and Dick were proved by same, getting rid of certain tea p members was covered with a detailed set of interviews/research on PRN. You are free to not believe me- with the side you are on, I frankly do not care. You are also free to blame Pelosi for my info - problem is, I do not spend a lot of time listening to politicians including Pelosi. I believe only what they actually do, not what they say - and that makes me tend to prefer Dems by a large stretch - they are, at least on the right general track.:)
 
And just to be clear, I find the OP pretty out there. It completely ignores the TP growing by becoming more moderate.
 
Hmmm...

Maybe someone here can show me the undoubtedly limitless number of threads in which people from the left thoughtfully and intelligently de-construct every facet and plank of the tea party. Showing where their ideas are actually wrong. Giving solid reasoning and data to show how they are wrong, and why the other side of the argument is true. Basically disarming them 100%, logically and fairly.

</snip>

Maybe someone here can show us the actual policies and platforms of the teabaggers, rather than a collection of vague and contradictory one-liners, such as "socialism is bad," "we need a strong military," "we must cut spending," etc.
 
Paid agitators was proved by newsagencies , sol and Dick were proved by same, getting rid of certain tea p members was covered with a detailed set of interviews/research on PRN. You are free to not believe me- with the side you are on, I frankly do not care. You are also free to blame Pelosi for my info - problem is, I do not spend a lot of time listening to politicians including Pelosi. I believe only what they actually do, not what they say - and that makes me tend to prefer Dems by a large stretch - they are, at least on the right general track.:)
What "agitators"? From all that I heard, their gatherings were consistently mild-mannered affairs. Show me any socially and politically motivated gatherings of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands that were less agitated.

I also don't believe anyone based solely on what they say, but what they do, which is why, for the first time in my life, the Tea Party platform gives me a slight glimmer, a last gasp of hope for my country, but I will believe it when I see some courage of conviction standing firm and not before.

So then, would you not agree and isn't it fair to say that you really do oppose the Tea Party for its principles because you do favor the "right general track" principles of the Democrats, and many of the Republicans, which undeniably currently is one of bigger government, increased spending, higher taxes and the increase of the national debt and federal budget deficit?
 
Last edited:
What "agitators"? From all that I heard, their gatherings were consistently mild-mannered affairs. Show me any socially and politically motivated gatherings of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands that were less agitated.

I also don't believe anyone based solely on what they say, but what they do, which is why, for the first time in my life, the Tea Party platform gives me a slight glimmer, a last gasp of hope for my country, but I will believe it when I see some courage of conviction standing firm and not before.

So then, would you not agree and isn't it fair to say that you really do oppose the Tea Party for its principles because you do favor the "right general track" principles of the Democrats, and many of the Republicans, which undeniably currently is one of bigger government, increased spending, higher taxes and the increase of the national debt and federal budget deficit?

You keep talking about higher taxes. Higher than what? Higher than when? Higher for whom?
Oh and I take it you are just going to avoid that whole pesky policies and platforms thing that people have asked?
 
The Republicans keep going further and further to the Right. They will eventually become the Tea Party, sooner or later.
 
The Republicans keep going further and further to the Right. They will eventually become the Tea Party, sooner or later.

Yes TBK but sadly they take the Dems with them every step so by the time the Republicans are the Tea Party the Dems will be the Republicans. Because the 'middle' we keep meeting them in is constantly moving further to the right.
 
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, as he left Independence Hall, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" he responded.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville
 
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, as he left Independence Hall, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" he responded.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville

Relevence?
Heres a news flash. Just because the two major parties in theis country share part of their names with republic and democracy doesn't mean they enshrine evey noble/ignoble trait of those words. And a republic without democracy would suck anyway.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom