Tea Partiers Mobilize To Take It 'To The Next Level'

[drkitten]

Anyone, on either side, who is utterly convinced their side has a strangle hold on facts, logic and reality is seriously deluding themselves.

Almost nothing is as cut and dry as some on either side make it out to be.

Some things genuinely are, though. Look at the legal theories espoused by the Freemen on the Land movement, which is something that is starting to filter into the Tea Party literature (although I don't have any machine-readable cites to hand.)

Sometimes the other side really is simply wrong and irrational. When the Tea Party movement claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, that erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments does not violate the Constitutution in the teeth of a controlling decision that it does, that there is no such legally enforceable principle as the separation of church and state, or that Obama is not eligible to be president because one of his parents was a non-citizen, then, yes, the other side does have a stranglehold on fact, logic, and reality.

There's no middle ground between "Obama is not eligible to be president" and "Obama is eligible to be president." The first claim is simply wrong, and irrationally so.

 

[MattusMaximus]

One Alan Keyes did not make the GOP the party of diversity.

But at least he made the 2004 Senate race in Illinois extremely entertaining

 

[MattusMaximus]

Some things genuinely are, though. Look at the legal theories espoused by the Freemen on the Land movement, which is something that is starting to filter into the Tea Party literature (although I don't have any machine-readable cites to hand.)

Sometimes the other side really is simply wrong and irrational. When the Tea Party movement claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, that erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments does not violate the Constitutution in the teeth of a controlling decision that it does, that there is no such legally enforceable principle as the separation of church and state, or that Obama is not eligible to be president because one of his parents was a non-citizen, then, yes, the other side does have a stranglehold on fact, logic, and reality.

There's no middle ground between "Obama is not eligible to be president" and "Obama is eligible to be president." The first claim is simply wrong, and irrationally so.

Seriously, I don't think Whip would dispute any of these things. I just think the point he's making is that it is wrong to label all conservatives as extremists like some of the more out-there Tea Party types. That would be just as wrong as labeling all liberals as extreme crazy Lyndon LaRouche whackos.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Some things genuinely are, though. Look at the legal theories espoused by the Freemen on the Land movement, which is something that is starting to filter into the Tea Party literature (although I don't have any machine-readable cites to hand.)

Sometimes the other side really is simply wrong and irrational. When the Tea Party movement claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation,

I think we need to pass a law about this, make all christians use the Jefferson Bible, then america will be a truely american christian nation.

 

[drkitten]

Seriously, I don't think Whip would dispute any of these things. I just think the point he's making is that it is wrong to label all conservatives as extremists like some of the more out-there Tea Party types.

But we weren't talking about "all conservatives"; we were specifically discussing "the Baggers'" position (see post #83), which I think we can acknowledge is an extremist position held by an extremist group.

I have no problem suggesting that the group defined as "not the Tea Baggers" holds a near-monopoly on logic and reason, just as "not the Truthers," does, or "not the Birthers," or "not the Freemen on the Land."

And the fact that all these groups are more or less the same, and getting more so, just strengthens this argument. The extremist opposition is homogenizing and hardening, as they borrow crazy from each other in a form of mutual support. Palin wasn't always a Birther, but she's found it politically expedient to accept their support, and she's been promoting the birther conspiracy theories since early December to strengthen that support.

 

[MattusMaximus]

But we weren't talking about "all conservatives"; we were specifically discussing "the Baggers'" position (see post #83), which I think we can acknowledge is an extremist position held by an extremist group.

I have no problem suggesting that the group defined as "not the Tea Baggers" holds a near-monopoly on logic and reason, just as "not the Truthers," does, or "not the Birthers," or "not the Freemen on the Land."

And the fact that all these groups are more or less the same, and getting more so, just strengthens this argument. The extremist opposition is homogenizing and hardening, as they borrow crazy from each other in a form of mutual support. Palin wasn't always a Birther, but she's found it politically expedient to accept their support, and she's been promoting the birther conspiracy theories since early December to strengthen that support.

Got it. You have no argument from me on this point.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'd like to invite some Tea Partiers to come over to this site and let us know how they really feel, but I'm sure I'd be banned in a heartbeat, and they wouldn't want to debate issues with folks that don't hold their beliefs. (think jesus)

I was thinking the same thing as I read your clip. Instead of being concerned about not expressing whacky beliefs, shouldn't they be focused on not HAVING whacky beliefs?

 

[GanipGnop]

My Opinion ... Brought To You By Carl's Jr.

Ok, I've given up trolling over there. They called me out on my first post..."No true patriot would use a login called 'TruePatriot'". I tried to discuss politics in the chat room, but there must be a 'secret handshake' to open the bat cave or something. Perhaps I didn't misspell enough words, in any case, they don't want more Tea Partiers. (they have exactly enough)

I was truly asking relevant questions like, "Is it the goal of the Tea Party to start a new National Political Party". "How do we regain control of the legislature with this movement". "I am a college student interested in your political philosophies, concerning the conservative movement in America".

meh. They don't want to proselytize their politics like they do their religion.

They don't appear to have any clue WTF they have going on over there more than I do. Yet they have the opportunity to actually create a new relevant national party, or reshape/destroy the Republican Party in a way that hasn't happened in decades.

I notice the "conservative" posters here on this forum also have no idea how to respond to this movement, like there can be no discussion about their crazy relatives in the 'other' part of the family. Only the prescribed response, "You're a Socialist".

Yes I am.

Vote Palin '12 !!11111!!!!

Of course you got called out you didn't grunt and spit enough. Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? (see first movie quote). If not I would suggest you rent it after you watch it everything will become clear.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the movie:

"Narrator: Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and ***gy to them". (the future humans chase Joe off)

"Narrator: As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species".

Dr. Lexus to Joe: "Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now".

"President Camacho: ****!. I know ****'s bad right now, with all that starving BS, and the dust storms, and we are running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
South Carolina Representative # 1: That's what you said last time, dip****!
South Carolina Representative # 2: Yeah, I got a solution, you're a dick! South Carolina, what's up!" (Oddly enough this movie has a Black president anybody remember Joe Wilson's (R-SC) outburst? It's not far from the mark I think the script writer is psychic)

President Joe/Not Sure: "And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for ***'s and neither was writing. People wrote books and movies, movies that had stories so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting, and I believe that time can come again"!

http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/quotes

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't see a "n" word sign in that link. One other link did have it, but the Tea Party group said that they disassociated itself with the person carrying it.

That was in my previous post. And the guy with the "n" word sign was a "Houston-based Tea Party leader". He photoshopped the sign on his website (since he was proud to hold the sign in public but ashamed of it on the web, I guess), and after this occurred, the local Tea Party group distanced itself from him.

No doubt some that show up at the rallies are bigoted, even racist, but I haven't found any official or unofficial statement in which they are claiming an inherent superiority of white people.

It's still pretty strong evidence that the Tea Party includes many racist members. I can think of few other organizations where even holding the sign in the first place would have been tolerated. I suspect that action was applauded, and this dissociation came about upon the realization that it doesn't look good to the mainstream. (That is, I think it was a bit of hypocrisy. Again, weren't other members at the event when he held the sign up in public?)

ETA: And I sort of anticipated you'd quibble over the obvious existence of racism in the Tea Party and look instead for an official statement. (Why don't you count these signs as "unofficial" statements?)

ETA: By the way, the guy's photoshopped image is still on the front page of the teaparty.org website:
http://www.teaparty.org/
Lower left. On the same site, he's also referred to as president and founder of the Tea Party. And, there's a C-span video that identifies him as "president and founder of teaparty.org" but seems to assume he is the main organizer of the protest they were covering.

ETA: I'm not sure who owns the name "Tea Party" but the only group I could find that dissociated itself from Dale Robertson (the guy with the racist sign) is the houstontps.org group.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

*blink*

Did she really just say that?

Anyone, on either side, who is utterly convinced their side has a strangle hold on facts, logic and reality is seriously deluding themselves.

Almost nothing is as cut and dry as some on either side make it out to be.

Almost everything is as multi-faceted and layered with things to consider as the other side makes it out to be, when criticizing their opposition.

I would add, though, that because both sides are utterly convinced that their side is correct and the other side is delusional doesn't mean that both sides are wrong (or equally wrong) and that the truth is equidistant between the two positions.

 

[tyr_13]

I would add, though, that because both sides are utterly convinced that their side is correct and the other side is delusional doesn't mean that both sides are wrong (or equally wrong) and that the truth is equidistant between the two positions.

argumentum ad temperantiam

 

[Neally]

It's still pretty strong evidence that the Tea Party includes many racist members.
ETA: And I sort of anticipated you'd quibble over the obvious existence of racism in the Tea Party and look instead for an official statement. (Why don't you count these signs as "unofficial" statements?)

I see no evidence that the part contains "many" racist members, and the person with the one sign with the "n" word was officially rejected. There has been no policy statement from the group stating that they feel whites are superior to other races. Thus far you have failed to establish that they are a racist organization, but I welcome any other evidence you may wish to present.

 

[Magyar]

I was listening to NPR today on my drive to a job site and they had 2 of the "leaders" of the tea party state Texas and IL. Other than the usual word salad of
less taxes and smaller govt. They spent their time denying that they're racist and how they have the MAJORITY of the American people behind them.

then both in separate statements proceeded to worn the American people that if "THEY" who ever they are can not change the govt through the ballot box then they will simply do it through the bullet box (apparently that's new slogan because it was repeated several times.)


Another caller was saying that a local radio talk show host who is apparently a bagger was giving out info his show on where to go to get unregistered gun and how to build ( I may have heard this wrong) explosives if they don't win.

Of course the republican pundants were too busy making excuses for the behavior of the "fringe" elements to notice that these were the people who CLAIMED on public radio to be the state leaders for the group.


I am wondering why no one is talking about listing these people as a terrorist organization?

I am not sure how they were officially clasified but hte Black panthers certainly were put on the radar screen. Many a political orgainzations around the world who make similar statements are listed as such. When you make statements like if we can't do it through the ballot box we'll do it using the bullet box from your leaders - what does the "fringe" look like?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see no evidence that the part contains "many" racist members, and the person with the one sign with the "n" word was officially rejected. There has been no policy statement from the group stating that they feel whites are superior to other races. Thus far you have failed to establish that they are a racist organization, but I welcome any other evidence you may wish to present.

Again, I already anticipated that you would pull back to that argument--saying that the only way you'll accept that there are many racists in the Tea Party is if they release an official statement claiming whites are a superior race.

Also, I think you're factually wrong in saying that this guy with sign was officially rejected. In fact, at this point, I don't think there really is an "official" Tea Party. That guy is still going on organizing "Liberty Concerts" and running teaparty.org.

This seems to be a problem throughout the Tea Party. Several different people and groups claim to be the real thing, while denying that others are.

But even on the point of this guy's sign at the Houston Tea Party demonstration, as I've already pointed out, they didn't "reject" him or the sign until it became a stink on the internet. And their statement that he has never been a Tea Party organizer is false. (See again the C-Span interview, and his ongoing organizing.)

And I've already shown you more racist signs at Tea Party demonstrations. Your claiming that there was only one is false. How many does it take?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At any rate, I hope they succeed in splitting conservatives and further weakening the Republican Party by running their own candidates.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I am wondering why no one is talking about listing these people as a terrorist organization?

I am not sure how they were officially clasified but hte Black panthers certainly were put on the radar screen. Many a political orgainzations around the world who make similar statements are listed as such. When you make statements like if we can't do it through the ballot box we'll do it using the bullet box from your leaders - what does the "fringe" look like?

Maygar, I'd have to listen to the NPR story you referenced to even seriously comment on this subject. Got link?

 

[Peephole]

And you as a Belgian care because...?

Belgium much have really boring politics for a Belgian to have such an obssesion with American Domestic Politics. I can understand concern with American Foreign Policy because that might have an impact on Belgium, but his constant comments on purely domestic politics reaches the point where I want to scream "Mind Your Own Damn Business".

I'm sorry, it's just that I'm not so very well acquainted with cross-border internet discussion etiquette. Can you guys give me a short list of topics I'm not supposed to weigh in on as the dirty foreigner? That would be really helpful, thanks.

It might be that I'd just go ahead and ignore it though, cause I don't really give a **** what you think.

 

[geni]

Belgium much have really boring politics for a Belgian to have such an obssesion with American Domestic Politics. I can understand concern with American Foreign Policy because that might have an impact on Belgium, but his constant comments on purely domestic politics reaches the point where I want to scream "Mind Your Own Damn Business".

Poltics traditionaly requires you have a goverment which has been a problem of late in Belgium although I think they have fixed that for the time being.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with Peephole. These ad hom remarks have nothing to do with the content of any arguments he has made. His nationality and his motives for posting comments here are irrelevant to any arguments he makes (unless the argument is specifically about his nationality or motivation for posting, which is not the case here).

ETA: And for the record, the statements Peephole made it the posts in question were all statements of fact that are true, the best I can tell. His nationality or motivation for making the post doesn't change the truth value of the statements.

 

[cwalner]

I'm sorry, it's just that I'm not so very well acquainted with cross-border internet discussion etiquette. Can you guys give me a short list of topics I'm not supposed to weigh in on as the dirty foreigner? That would be really helpful, thanks.

It might be that I'd just go ahead and ignore it though, cause I don't really give a **** what you think. [qimg]http://users.telenet.be/peephole/emoticons/emot-ssh.gif[/qimg]

That would be too long. Just be safe and only talk about waffles. In America, we like Belgian Waffles.