Tea Party’s already won

[pragmatic]

If you hadn't noticed they are also threatening some GOP held offices. I haven't figured out what makes the Tea Party any differfent than any other party. They have the same slogans and promises all the rest have. The truth is they will be no better than the fools in office.

Guess we will just have to respectively disagree. Believe the movement has opened some eyes (and accordingly got the attention) of many of the entrenched in Washington.

Even the offices they don't win will have a new awareness that there is a change in the mood of the country. Which was long overdue, btw. Think that is a good thing....


.



.

 

[USA_1]

Guess we will just have to respectively disagree. Believe the movement has opened some eyes (and accordingly got the attention) of many of the entrenched in Washington.

Even the offices they don't win will have a new awareness that there is a change in the mood of the country. Which was long overdue, btw. Think that is a good thing....


.



.

What exactly does the Tea Party promise that someone already hasn't promised in the past? Lower taxes? Smaller government?
Less spending? Eliminate entitlements? (oops....can't do that because many of them are already getting some kind of entitlement). Bring honesty and intergrity back into government? Sorry, but we've heard it all before. Same shet, different dog.

The mood of the country has changed because the economy is in the toilet. It happens every time. Obama ran on change, the Tea party is running on change. It's all the same BS.

 

[Geo Patric]

GO TP!

i am gonna vote whoever runs as a TPer.... damn right I am... i look forward to helping the republican party splinter like a chicken bone in a pit bull's jaws.

the further right they swing, the better. anti-tax, anti-abortion, anti-gummint... bring it on. moderate republicans are as scarce as a virgin under the bleachers. turn the freaking senate and house into a zoo of squirrely paranoics calling the president names.

The GOP mainstream slammed Rand... and Rand won and the GOP drifted into spooky territory. they pee'd in O'Donnel's tea, largely because she is a complete idiot... and guess what!

here we see the backlash of the intellectually inferior... goddamn pointy headed spook president! we'll show HIM.... stand up for your rights! elect a moron!

O'Donnel! yes... she picnics on bloody altars with satanists (it's ok... she didn't notice anything unusual) but she don't finger herself... no sir! she has morals!

no brains, but....

how things have changed in two years, eh? so... when is the next presidential election... two years you say? hahahahahah.

man, this is fun,

geo

 

[Redress]

Several comments.

First, it's amusing that after almost a year of denying it, no one even bothers to deny any more that the tea party is part of the republican party.

Second, claiming to have stopped Obama's platform, when republicans have almost entirely failed to stop it is hilarious.

Third, it remains to be seen how much the tea party hurts or helps the republicans.

Fourth, as pointed out earlier, parties power ebbs and flows. Thinking anything permanent is going to come out of all this is as silly as saying the republican party was dead after 2008, or the democratic party was dead after 2000.

 

[pragmatic]

Several comments.

First, it's amusing that after almost a year of denying it, no one even bothers to deny any more that the tea party is part of the republican party.

Second, claiming to have stopped Obama's platform, when republicans have almost entirely failed to stop it is hilarious.

Third, it remains to be seen how much the tea party hurts or helps the republicans.

Fourth, as pointed out earlier, parties power ebbs and flows. Thinking anything permanent is going to come out of all this is as silly as saying the republican party was dead after 2008, or the democratic party was dead after 2000.

Believe a big part of the tea party creation/growth was disenchantment among conservatives with current Republicans. And they are getting that message across. Don't agree with your implication that they are a part of the existing/entrenched Washington Republican party.

On your second point, never heard anyone from the tea party movement claiming to have "stopped Obama's platform". The fact that he (Obama) has been so successful with his agenda is what is inciting a lot of conservatives to react.



.

 

[Grim17]

Several comments.

First, it's amusing that after almost a year of denying it, no one even bothers to deny any more that the tea party is part of the republican party.

It's not part of the republican party, though most of them are republicans. The Tea Party is about conservatism. A strong belief in fiscal restraint, smaller government and a respect for the constitution.

Second, claiming to have stopped Obama's platform, when republicans have almost entirely failed to stop it is hilarious.

They slowed it down or altered it in some cases, and have stopped it in others. The health care plan would have had the public option if it weren't for the town hall uprising last summer. Those protests are what forced the so called "blue dog" democrats to hold out until it was watered down some what. They are also responsible for the Cap & Trade bill being shelved.

Third, it remains to be seen how much the tea party hurts or helps the republicans.

I'll agree with you there, but that's because helping the republican party isn't what they are trying to do. If that were the case, a handful of current republicans nominees for the midterms wouldn't be on the ballot. Does Delaware ring a bell?

Fourth, as pointed out earlier, parties power ebbs and flows. Thinking anything permanent is going to come out of all this is as silly as saying the republican party was dead after 2008, or the democratic party was dead after 2000.

Like I said before, their primary goal is to get conservatives elected and get the progressives from both parties the hell out of Washington. Just look at how many "republicans" the Tea Party has turned against so far. As for the longevity of the Tea Party movement, that remains to be seen. If their perseverance through all the attacks from the main stream media is any indication, I would say they will be a potent force in politics for many years to come.

 

[obvious Child]

cynicism is naivete as well, usa.

Hardly at all. When the Tea Party Members start to push their federal program gutting initiatives, they will see a rise of people who want them out, and like all politicians, they will change their ideas and support plans that don't get them thrown out of office. You really like people are going to back Joe Miller's plan to entirely gut Social Security? Or strip health coverage for millions? The party members are saying what gets them elected.

 

[joe six-pack]

It's just too bad it took the radical policies of the Obama administration and democrats on capitol hill to wake up America. If they would have done this 30 years ago, we might not be in this mess today.

The Tea Party started as a protest to Republican President Bush's financial bailout. They continued when Obama rolled out his economic stimulus.

Republicans and Democrats have both created the environment in which this recession was possible. This was Bush's recession.

 

[Grim17]

The Tea Party started as a protest to Republican President Bush's financial bailout. They continued when Obama rolled out his economic stimulus.

Republicans and Democrats have both created the environment in which this recession was possible. This was Bush's recession.

Do you just dabble in re-writing and distorting history, or is it something you engage in on a regular basis?

 

[Teh Internets]

Do you just dabble in re-writing and distorting history, or is it something you engage in on a regular basis?

Which part of his post are you refering to?

 

[sokpupet]

Is this the Tea Party? Really?

Christine O'Donnell Slams Welfare, Pop Culture: You Can Legislate Morality (VIDEO)
~snip
Quote:
Dig a little deeper into her past record, however, and one gets the sense that O'Donnell's legislative outlook is basically scripted by her social and religious views. In a C-SPAN appearance the Huffington Post unearthed from December 1996, the Delaware Republican said it was a "misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality."

"The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality," she said. "So you can't get around legislating morality."

To her point, she offered a lengthy denunciation of the government's implementation of welfare and food stamps, blaming the two programs for fostering laziness and encouraging drug use.

"I think that drug use is out of control here and there is something called tough love and what has happened with the liberal welfare program implemented in the last decade is they have cultivated an attitude of dependency," O'Donnell said. "The reality is, especially in my own city here in D.C., is that a lot of those people who do deal drugs are using federal money that they get from welfare programs. We need to implement a tough love program.

"We know that people will abuse the system. They will find a recovery program that can enable them to continue in their drug use as long as they get federal funding. We see the same kind of abuse with food stamps... people are abusing our compassion."

Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending

~snip
Quote:
Myth: Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending.

Fact: Middle-class entitlements are to blame for runaway government spending.

Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.

Argument

There are not enough mental healthcare professionals in the western hemisphere to treat this shyte.

 

[TurtleDude]

Is this the Tea Party? Really?

Christine O'Donnell Slams Welfare, Pop Culture: You Can Legislate Morality (VIDEO)
~snip
Quote:
Dig a little deeper into her past record, however, and one gets the sense that O'Donnell's legislative outlook is basically scripted by her social and religious views. In a C-SPAN appearance the Huffington Post unearthed from December 1996, the Delaware Republican said it was a "misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality."

"The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality," she said. "So you can't get around legislating morality."

To her point, she offered a lengthy denunciation of the government's implementation of welfare and food stamps, blaming the two programs for fostering laziness and encouraging drug use.

"I think that drug use is out of control here and there is something called tough love and what has happened with the liberal welfare program implemented in the last decade is they have cultivated an attitude of dependency," O'Donnell said. "The reality is, especially in my own city here in D.C., is that a lot of those people who do deal drugs are using federal money that they get from welfare programs. We need to implement a tough love program.

"We know that people will abuse the system. They will find a recovery program that can enable them to continue in their drug use as long as they get federal funding. We see the same kind of abuse with food stamps... people are abusing our compassion."

Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending

~snip
Quote:
Myth: Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending.

Fact: Middle-class entitlements are to blame for runaway government spending.

Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.

Argument

There are not enough mental healthcare professionals in the western hemisphere to treat this shyte.

cutting back the big government seems to terrify most those who gain power from big government or suckle at its teats

 

[sokpupet]

Not having a slave workforce terrifies those who gain money and power from oppressing hard working citizens who are the backbone of the capitalists fortunes. Not to leave out the Military wastes in spending which both sides seem to think is A-fekin'-OK.

 

[cpwill]

Hardly at all.

assumption of the negative has no more to recommend it than assumption of the positive.

When the Tea Party Members start to push their federal program gutting initiatives, they will see a rise of people who want them out, and like all politicians, they will change their ideas and support plans that don't get them thrown out of office.

the Tea Party is about half in favor of privatizing SS/Medicare and about half not. You're definitely not going to see the half that is in favor gain enough power to ram that through immediately, and you're certainly not going to see them get rid of such programs entirely.

You really like people are going to back Joe Miller's plan to entirely gut Social Security? Or strip health coverage for millions?

you know as well as anyone else here what our unfunded liabilities are from these two programs; some form of means-testing and/or privatization is going to happen. the question becomes whether we do so now when we can ease into it, or whether we do so when it hurts much more.

In a C-SPAN appearance the Huffington Post unearthed from December 1996, the Delaware Republican said it was a "misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality."

"The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality," she said. "So you can't get around legislating morality."

and she is correct. law is nothing more than enforced public morality.

Myth: Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending.

Fact: Middle-class entitlements are to blame for runaway government spending.

this is certainly partially true. but let's not forget those wonderful corporate entitlements (TARP, endless Bailouts, etc) as well. as you highlight so entertainingly in those posters. but you are inaccurate in your pretensions that it is only Republicans engaging in bailouts; this has been a two-party chunder, and it's one of the reasons why the Tea Party has no more mercy for establishment Republicans than they do for establishment Democrats.

 

[sokpupet]

law is nothing more than enforced public morality.

I will address this one here:
Law and Morality

Let's summarize the relationship between morality and law.

(1) The existence of unjust laws (such as those enforcing slavery) proves that morality and law are not identical and do not coincide.

(2) The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values--such as laws against murder, rape, malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, etc. --prove that the two can work together.

(3) Laws can state what overt offenses count as wrong and therefore punishable. Although law courts do not always ignore a person's intention or state of mind, the law cannot normally govern, at least not in a direct way, what is in your heart (your desires). Because often morality passes judgment on a person's intentions and character, it has a different scope than the law.

(4) Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality, when it is internalized, when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without compulsion. The virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing to do.

(5) Morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral actions illegal.

(6) Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public way the basic principles of conduct which a society accepts. In that way it can guide the educators of the next generation by giving them a clear outline of the values society wants taught to its children.

 

[Gabriel]

I say this with the greatest sincerity I can muster.. If Americans elect one Tea Party wacko into their government it would indicate to me that America has become the most duped and ignorant democratic nation on the planet. Instead of advancing I would have to say that it is a clear political and social regression. Globally you will look like a bunch of idiots. I can’t even believe this bunch of wacko tea party dorks have made in roads in the political process. Clearly the republican party has little else to offer with the bush era failure. But the prescription offered by the tea party to fix the bush era mess is more of the same.. only to the extreme.

Americans should be scared to death of the tea party. I’m embarrassed for you.

 

[sokpupet]

but you are inaccurate in your pretensions that it is only Republicans engaging in bailouts; this has been a two-party chunder, and it's one of the reasons why the Tea Party has no more mercy for establishment Republicans than they do for establishment Democrats.

You seem to have taken my google images and pulled a "Carnac the Magnificent" I agree the Tea Party give lip service against all the government spending; but you mark my word.. .. ..if they get in power, NOTHING will change. It is very easy to say something and actually do it. The population of the Tea Party are the same population who have been voted into government since it's inception. This is just another campaign tactic like, "Read My Lips; No New Taxes". So don't kid yourself.

 

[cpwill]

I will address this one here:

well let's break it down

(1) The existence of unjust laws (such as those enforcing slavery) proves that morality and law are not identical and do not coincide.

not really. what one is saying when one says "unjust law" is that one disagrees with the moral preference described in that law. law's position as the enforced public morality (in a representative society i should have hastened to add; in a monarchy, for example, it's the enforcement of the kings' moral rulings).

(2) The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values--such as laws against murder, rape, malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, etc. --prove that the two can work together.

not simply that, but that they spring from the same fundamental source; the question becomes at what point does something remain 'wrong'; but we are unwilling to enforce it. all those things above we consider "morally wrong" and thus illegalize them as a priori arguments.

(3) Laws can state what overt offenses count as wrong and therefore punishable. Although law courts do not always ignore a person's intention or state of mind, the law cannot normally govern, at least not in a direct way, what is in your heart (your desires). Because often morality passes judgment on a person's intentions and character, it has a different scope than the law.

actually law can do just that; hence we have 'hate crime' laws. which some disagree with, not because they disagree that such is immoral, but rather because they don't see a need for public coercion there.

(4) Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality, when it is internalized, when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without compulsion. The virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing to do.

so we hope, but this doesn't make any kind of argument at all. publicly enforced morality means precisely that morality which we are willing to punish you for disobeying. pointing out that good people will seek to make moral decisions as a counterargument is like saying that those training to be olympic sprinters don't need to take P.E. classes in school, ergo no school should make anyone take a P.E. class.

(5) Morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral actions illegal.

exactly. the people decide that a certain action is wrong, and they feel strongly enough about it to instruct their representatives to attack coercive measures such as punative ones to the act of engaging in it.

(6) Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public way the basic principles of conduct which a society accepts. In that way it can guide the educators of the next generation by giving them a clear outline of the values society wants taught to its children.

again not really sure how this argues your point.

 

[cpwill]

I say this with the greatest sincerity I can muster.. If Americans elect one Tea Party wacko into their government it would indicate to me that America has become the most duped and ignorant democratic nation on the planet. Instead of advancing I would have to say that it is a clear political and social regression. Globally you will look like a bunch of idiots. I can’t even believe this bunch of wacko tea party dorks have made in roads in the political process. Clearly the republican party has little else to offer with the bush era failure. But the prescription offered by the tea party to fix the bush era mess is more of the same.. only to the extreme.

Americans should be scared to death of the tea party. I’m embarrassed for you.

yeah, that's what they said about Reagan, too.

 

[sokpupet]

again not really sure how this argues your point.

That's OK. This is an argument tempered by one's religion. You and I may agree on the necessity of law and it's intended outcome; but my rub is I disagree in legislating someone's salvation.

 

[Barbbtx]

The Tea Party rhetoric reminds me of all that "Hope and Change" BS of the last presidential race.

Maybe, but I don't see the Tea Party fizzling out like Obama's "Hope and Change" did.

 

[PeteEU]

Has the "Tea Party" managed to set up a national organisation with a leader, or are they still a bunch of half criminals looking for their 15 min of fame in each state/region/city?

 

[cpwill]

That's OK. This is an argument tempered by one's religion. You and I may agree on the necessity of law and it's intended outcome; but my rub is I disagree in legislating someone's salvation.

now given that there is certainly no law insisting that you either pray five times to Mecca and recite that Muhammad is Allah's prophet / insisting that you accept Jesus Christ as your savior.... how in the world is that a rub of yours?

 

[USA_1]

Maybe, but I don't see the Tea Party fizzling out like Obama's "Hope and Change" did.

If they keep supporting candidates like this they may fizzle out by the end of the year.
YouTube - Christine O'Donnell's 90's MTV Anti-Masturbation Campaign

 

[Captain America]

I have always said, and I still thinik, that what the Tea Party will accomplish, outside of sending out a resounding wake-up call, is a GOP splinter assuring democrat domination in the years to come.