• 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 vs War Party

Stopped clock syndrome.

I notice the responses are still knee-jerk conservative.

The teabaggers look like they may be the Golem that kills the GOP because they forgot to make the animating charm accessible and removeable.
 
I have read about the Tea Party (a lot from this site), but in my European papers, they seem to range from the 'humourus' eccentrics to the next 1st World Nazi party.

How would you describe the Tea Party to non-US residents?

Are they really a threat to US democracy?

And, should Europe (the EU to be precise) be careful of them?
 
I have read about the Tea Party (a lot from this site), but in my European papers, they seem to range from the 'humourus' eccentrics to the next 1st World Nazi party.

Well, they seem not to be very good at keeping the Nazis from tagging along on demonstrations, and the Nazis do always need a few more useful idiots. They can be dangerous.
 
Article by Patrick Buchanan (suprisingly).

Yes he's a nutter in many areas, but this article has a lot of truth.


If you think the article contains things which are worth discussing, it would be useful to quote or paraphrase those sections. What are some of the truths you feel are expressed in the article?

Providing a link is useful as a supplement to what you write in posts, just as providing a footnote can be useful as a supplement to what is written in a books or a magazine article. Links and footnotes can make it easier for others to check on the accuracy of what you say, and to find additional details about what you say. But they are not a substitute for actually saying something.
 
How would you describe the Tea Party to non-US residents?

It's a populist movement to limit the size of government.

Are they really a threat to US democracy?

Nope. They are democracy in action. Lefty and his ilk like to portray them that way because they don't like the results of such democracy (they only want the people to have power when the people have the correct opinions).

And, should Europe (the EU to be precise) be careful of them?

They're mostly concerned with internal domestic US politics, not foreign policy, so Europe needn't do anything.
 
It's a populist movement to limit the size of government get the black guy out of the White House.


"Take our Country back" rah, rah, rah...:rolleyes:
 
It's a populist movement to limit the size of government.

That is an interesting choice of words. It's also BS. Nobody wants to limit the size of government. They only want to limit the government from doing things they don't like.

Show me the tea Partiers who wants to reduce the military budget, reduce social security, AND allow women to have abortions and gays to marry, then I will show you someone who wants to limit the size of government.
 
The gay marriage thing isn't about government size. Whichever side you take, you expect government intervention in some form.

I really can't speak for the whole of the country, mainly because the Tea Party itself isn't really that organized.

I can only tell it's story from my small corner. It has actually been around for a while, although it wasn't a movement so much as an MO. It didn't have a name until certain celebrities high jacked it. My mom had actually been involved with them until they "went national".

Anyway, for a while now, HOA and other political activist groups would hold "tea parties" to protest the local towns and county seats (to my knowledge, they didn't really bother with Washington). It was mostly fiscal conservatives PO'd about property taxes going sky high (my folks pay some of the highest in the country) and services not following suit because politics in the area is all mobbed up. There were also other groups for environmental and educational causes. Stuff you would expect to concern the people of suburbia.

I guess with the economy crashing, these groups attracted more members. With the internet and 24 hour news channels, they got more attention.

And with certain media entities looking to stick it to the current administration, they got new...I guess we can call it "leadership". The sad part is, my mom and the people she worked with in these groups originally all left because of the "new direction".
 
It's a populist movement to limit the size of government.

It's also BS.
I'm with Upchurch. It's a group of people, mostly white and relatively well off, who are afraid of change. Globalization. Non-whites. Etc. Such changes threaten the status quo which has been pretty good to them. The the predominate theme is "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." which is a cover for fear of the unknown.
 
The gay marriage thing isn't about government size. Whichever side you take, you expect government intervention in some form.

Baloney. Whenever a new business regulation is introduced, it is billed as government power grab. Google "network neutrality".
 
Baloney. Whenever a new business regulation is introduced, it is billed as government power grab. Google "network neutrality".

Ya, that does nothing to disprove my point. You either want the government to enforce change in marriage laws or you want the government to prevent gays from getting married.
 
Ya, that does nothing to disprove my point. You either want the government to enforce change in marriage laws or you want the government to prevent gays from getting married.


You either want the government to enforce change in marriage laws the Constitution, or you want the government to prevent gays from getting married.

FTFY
 
That is an interesting choice of words. It's also BS. Nobody wants to limit the size of government. They only want to limit the government from doing things they don't like.

Show me the tea Partiers who wants to reduce the military budget, reduce social security, AND allow women to have abortions and gays to marry, then I will show you someone who wants to limit the size of government.

Not Tea Party. However


www.fff.org
www.reason.com
 
It's a group of people, mostly white and relatively well off, who are afraid of change.

Sounds like you're talking about MSNBC.

When your primary criticism of a movement with such massive popular support is that they're racist (based mostly on their race), well, you don't have a strong hand. As Obama himself said, he was black before he got elected.

The tea party has quite a few white politicians in its sights as well, white establishment politicians. You say that the tea party is afraid of change, and yet change is exactly what they're demanding. Not just a change from this administration, but a change from business as usual in Washington.
 
When did the Tea Party call for the dismantlement of democracy and replacement by a ruler-for-life?

They're just a bunch of guys who are against the bailouts and healthcare reform. It's their right to protest those things as much as they want.

Commies and other fringe leftists are worse. They smash things, express solidarity with terrorists and call for the murder of presidents.

Don't worry, American society won't come crashing to the ground because some conservatives marched with some signs.
 
Nope. They are democracy in action. Lefty and his ilk like to portray them that way because they don't like the results of such democracy (they only want the people to have power when the people have the correct opinions).

Democracy in action was what put Obama in the White House. The Tea Party and its backers don´t like the results of such democracy, (they only want the people to have power when the people have the correct opinions and skin color), so they´re clamoring for him to be removed.
 

Back
Top Bottom