• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Federation kicks out Williams over blog post (1 Viewer)

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Tea Party Federation kicks out Williams over blog post - CNN.com

(CNN) -- The National Tea Party Federation, an organization that represents the Tea Party political movement around the country, has expelled conservative commentator Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express because of an inflammatory blog post he wrote, federation spokesman David Webb said Sunday.

Appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Webb said that Williams and the Tea Party Express -- which has held a series of events across the country to generate support for the movement -- no longer were part of the National Tea Party Federation.
 
Tea Party Federation kicks out Williams over blog post - CNN.com

(CNN) -- The National Tea Party Federation, an organization that represents the Tea Party political movement around the country, has expelled conservative commentator Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express because of an inflammatory blog post he wrote, federation spokesman David Webb said Sunday.

Appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Webb said that Williams and the Tea Party Express -- which has held a series of events across the country to generate support for the movement -- no longer were part of the National Tea Party Federation.

Good for them. The Tea Partiers have just gained credibility with that move. NOTE: The Tea Party Express is not a real Tea Party organization either, but a fake, consisting of power hungry idiots who attempted to hijack the movement for their own political ends. I am glad the Tea Party has kicked them to the curb. Now I am beginning to like them a little.
 
Last edited:
Same. I've been questioning for a few years if the "taxation without representation is tyranny" statement has become true all over again.

Now I am beginning to like them a little.
 
Same. I've been questioning for a few years if the "taxation without representation is tyranny" statement has become true all over again.

Those darned democratically elected representatives are raising my taxes without representation!
 
Those darned democratically elected representatives are raising my taxes without representation!

The question isn't merely whether representatives were elected democratically, and that alone. The question also arises as to whether those who pay taxes (especially those who pay the most) are being legitimately and fairly represented by people who have the best intrests of the country as their priority.

It is questions like these that led to the rise of a grassroots organization like the Tea Party, which was dissatisfied with both Dem and Republican politicians, and is seeking to replace the "good old boy network" politicians with new faces that are less beholden to entrenched intrests and the established power base.

Works for me.
 
The question isn't merely whether representatives were elected democratically, and that alone. The question also arises as to whether those who pay taxes (especially those who pay the most) are being legitimately and fairly represented by people who have the best intrests of the country as their priority.

It is questions like these that led to the rise of a grassroots organization like the Tea Party, which was dissatisfied with both Dem and Republican politicians, and is seeking to replace the "good old boy network" politicians with new faces that are less beholden to entrenched intrests and the established power base.

Works for me.
Bingo, and this is where I stand.
 
Well, kudos to them for tossing the guy. He obviously has no business in american politics.

However the fact that he was a leader in this movement shows just how deep the problems go, and how unwilling they've been to deal with these issues so far.

I think there are plenty of folks in the Tea Party movement who have status quo views on race, but they're hiding their head in the sand if they won't own up to the crap that has been done by people who want to associate with the Tea Party.

If calling someone racist is race-baiting, and the Tea Party folks are calling the NAACP racist, then what exacty is the Tea Party doing? The most benevolent characterization would be getting down the mud and making things worse by ratcheting up the vitriol instead of trying to open a dialog.

Apparently after all of this, some TP's have realized that fighting the NAACP isn't going to be fruitful. There's really no need to get overly defensive about keeping your own house clean.
 
Good for them.

It is questions like these that led to the rise of a grassroots organization like the Tea Party, which was dissatisfied with both Dem and Republican politicians, and is seeking to replace the "good old boy network" politicians with new faces that are less beholden to entrenched intrests and the established power base.

Which is useful for the Republic, however, in all honesty, the "good old boy network" of centuries' past has been dramatically weakened over the past 100 years. We do not really live in the days of Henry Stimson and Elihu Root forging alliances with Chester Arthor, Jay Gould, William Whitney, McKinley, Taft and Roosevelt when only in their early thirties.

Likewise, it has long been observable with public policy organizations that in the beginning there is passion, there is intrigue, and newness. Somewhere along the way, those people either leave or slowly become replaced by those who see the reality that dictates that they believe they can get more done by becoming a bit more and more what they do not like: those darn "special interests."
 
Last edited:
The question isn't merely whether representatives were elected democratically, and that alone. The question also arises as to whether those who pay taxes (especially those who pay the most) are being legitimately and fairly represented by people who have the best intrests of the country as their priority.

It is questions like these that led to the rise of a grassroots organization like the Tea Party, which was dissatisfied with both Dem and Republican politicians, and is seeking to replace the "good old boy network" politicians with new faces that are less beholden to entrenched intrests and the established power base.

Works for me.

"Taxation without the sort of representation that I personally think to be in the best interests of the country" makes a crappy protest chant :/
 
"Taxation without the sort of representation that I personally think to be in the best interests of the country" makes a crappy protest chant :/

Sums up their argument pretty well though.
 
"Taxation without the sort of representation that I personally think to be in the best interests of the country" makes a crappy protest chant :/

Maybe a poor chant, but one hell of a platform to stand on.

Sixty-one percent of Americans — and 64 percent of registered voters — said they favored the law

Read more: Poll: Americans back Arizona's illegal immigrants law | McClatchy

Yet the fed is suing Arizona.

Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

Rammed it thru anyway with bribes and threats.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Support for Stimulus Package Falls to 37% - Rasmussen Reports™


That is taxation without representation and one hell of a bad mistake by the dems and a great platform for the party of “HELL NO”.
 
That is taxation without representation and one hell of a bad mistake by the dems and a great platform for the party of “HELL NO”.
If you think legislatures should vote based on opinion polls, I would think your real beef is that you prefer direct democracy to any kind of representation. Maybe I'm being too literal here, but it doesn't sound like a very republican viewpoint.
 
If you think legislatures should vote based on opinion polls, I would think your real beef is that you prefer direct democracy to any kind of representation. Maybe I'm being too literal here, but it doesn't sound like a very republican viewpoint.

I think in our "representative" style of government, the government should represent the majority of the people...... they didn't, and they will feel it in the next two elections, and that is as it should be.
 
I think in our "representative" style of government, the government should represent the majority of the people...... they didn't, and they will feel it in the next two elections, and that is as it should be.
They are beholden to the people in their districts. Which is different from a random slice of America from a poll. I expect my representatives to make hard decisions on my behalf. That may or may not relate to poll results that could change from month to month.

For example, if vote for someone because they campaign for issue X, but then 6 months later I (and my district) no longer support issue X. It's not clear cut what a representative should do to earn my vote next election. Should they "flip flop" and go back on their campaign promise, or should the follow the "will of the people"?
 
I think of liberals AND conservatives that support their elected ideological icons and the 14 trillion dollar (and counting) hole they have put us in and see their disgaraging comments about the tea party principles of responsible goivernment and laugh and laugh and lau...ummm...throw up just a little bit...
 
What I want to know is, WHY didn't the Tea Party Federation kick him out for his previous comments, like when he said Muslims worship a "Monkey God", or when he referred to President Obama as "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief."
 
Well, what was wrong with those things? They're true, aren't they? </blatant sarcasm>

What I want to know is, WHY didn't the Tea Party Federation kick him out for his previous comments, like when he said Muslims worship a "Monkey God", or when he referred to President Obama as "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief."
 
What I want to know is, WHY didn't the Tea Party Federation kick him out for his previous comments, like when he said Muslims worship a "Monkey God", or when he referred to President Obama as "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief."




Because we are all ku klucking racists and we hatez the blackz and teh muzlimz.....


oh and mexicanz too... :roll:
 
What I want to know is, WHY didn't the Tea Party Federation kick him out for his previous comments, like when he said Muslims worship a "Monkey God", or when he referred to President Obama as "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief."

Don't know about the God Monkey, but the rest of that is true.
 
Apparently 'Fee Speech' is not in their particular constitution?
 
Because we are all ku klucking racists and we hatez the blackz and teh muzlimz.....


oh and mexicanz too... :roll:

Hey, I asked a legitimate question, and you're ridiculing me. Clearly you're taking a page from Saul Alinsky:roll:
 
Don't know about the God Monkey, but the rest of that is true.

He's not Indonesian, he's not Muslim, everything he's done has been legal according to our political system... can we have a political discussion without having to demonize people who disagree with us?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom