• 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!

What is the Tea Party? Please explain!

Guy Incognito said:
The Tea Party Agenda, according to teapartista Michelle Bachmann:

1. Keep Bush taxcuts for the rich, or else, if the rich don't get to keep them make sure the middle class don't get them either.
2. Complete repeal of all the benefits of "Obamacare."
3. Immigration reform
4. No energy regulation.

The Tea Party is only concerned with "immigration" but not punishment to the employers who illicitly hire undocumented workers. Their definition of immigration reform is keep the immigration status quo, and make sure there is no pathwway to citizenship.

For energy regulation, they'd rather have Rev's antique lightbulbs on sale at wal mart than get America off foreign oil.

Sounds like a really patriotic agenda :roll:

I'm just glad the Republicans won the house this time around, effectively handing Obama and the Democrats the government in 2012. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory and two years of gridlock.
Click to expand...
Interesting, except #2, those have never been my positions, and I WORK for the tea party. Odd that. :rolleyes:
 
mpg said:
I've checked this in the past at nationmaster.com and the US was always behind several countries and way behind a few. I checked there just now and the US was completely removed from the list. I got conflicting data when I googled it.
Click to expand...

Nationmaster claims to get its data from the CIA factbook. I'm guessing they have decided that it isn't helpful for propaganda reasons to have US figures there. From US government budget submissions, its 2010 military budget was $680 billion, i.e. $2266 per capita - double that of the country in second place, Israel.
 
Andalublue said:
Nationmaster claims to get its data from the CIA factbook. I'm guessing they have decided that it isn't helpful for propaganda reasons to have US figures there. From US government budget submissions, its 2010 military budget was $680 billion, i.e. $2266 per capita - double that of the country in second place, Israel.
Click to expand...
404. must be a retraction....
 
Low taxes, limited government, and constitutional laws.

In other words: nothing I'd touch with a ten foot pole.
 
the tea party imo is a brilliant idea from carl rove to steal the name from the libertarian's (ie: ron paul the original tea partier) and handed it over to the FAR right republicans (ie: sarah palin) to make the republican party stronger and gain votes.
 
majora$$hole said:
the tea party imo is a brilliant idea from carl rove to steal the name from the libertarian's (ie: ron paul the original tea partier) and handed it over to the FAR right republicans (ie: sarah palin) to make the republican party stronger and gain votes.
Click to expand...




any evidence that it was a karl rove thing or are you talking out your waste ejection port?
 
samsmart said:
I think there's a few aspects of the Tea Party movement that haven't been mentioned or thought of.

Essentially, it's a movement of paleo-conservative populists to take control of the Republican Party, and specifically take the Republican Party away from the neo-conservatives who previously held control of it.

Remember, the United States only has two major political parties. But that doesn't mean that everyone within one of the parties agrees with everyone else. This is because the two-party system, which naturally occurs because of plurality voting systems, calls for broad platforms. This is unlike the multi-party systems found in Europe and elsewhere, where there are more political parties with stronger party discipline as compared to the U.S., but the political parties form coalitions in order to hold majorities to pass legislation.

So, to use a metaphor that a European may better understand, don't think of it as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party but rather the Republican Coalition of conservatives and the Democratic Coalition of liberals.

So the Republican Coalition is made up of several conservative/rightist factions. Among these are paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarians, and religious conservatives. All of these factions vie for control of the Republican Party to some degree, and how well they get along varies from time to time.

For quite some time paleo-conservatives were, for the most part, in control of the Republican Party. Paleo-conservatives have among their core beliefs:
1) economic conservatism: little regulation of businesses and the economy
2) fiscal conservatism: reduction of the national debt and national deficit
3) decentralization of government: "states' rights" advocacy, and reduction of "big government"
4) strong border policy: they are against easy immigration to the United States
5) a non-interventionist foreign policy: they are against interfering in the affairs of other nations, and many want to go so far as to pull out of the United Nations
6) traditional family values: they favor conservative old-fashioned values centered around conservative ideas of family (a married couple of a man and a woman raising their children)

Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, have different values. What makes them conservative, but "neo," is that they essentially favor centralization of government in order to promote their conservative values. They share many essential values with paleo-conservatives, but choose to use the government to promote them, whereas paleo-conservatives aren't as willing to use government interventionism. The core beliefs of neo-conservatives are the following:
1) limit government support to industry: neo-conservatives support using tax revenue to support or bail-out important industries, such as the airline industry or bank industry
2) use of national debt: neo-conservatives are not as fiscally responsible, and by that I mean they do not have such a strict adherence to a balanced budget or reduction of national debt
3) centralization of government: neo-conservatives believe in the use of government programs for conservative ideals
4) soft border policy: neo-conservatives want looser immigration regulations in order to benefit from foreign workers
5) interventionist foreign policy: neo-conservatives are more willing to use diplomacy and the military to promote American interests abroad

Neo-conservatism arose after the Great Depression, and basically applied FDR's principles of politics to conservative values. They came about during the '60's and '70's, ascended during the '80's and '90's, and came to power during GWB's administration.

Look up on YouTube a video from the Daily Show that shows "Governor Bush" debating "President Bush." Effectively, it shows GWB as a governor promoting many paleo-conservative ideals while as president he promoted many neo-conservative ideals.

It was during GWB's administration that many paleo-cons were silent on the intense government interference the neo-cons were doing into areas that traditionally the conservatives were against interfering in. Among these were the No Child Left Behind Act, the airline bailouts after 9/11, the Global War on Terror, wars for regime change in Iraq, and the bailouts GWB did during the burst of the housing market bubble in 2006-07. Many paleo-cons didn't criticize the neo-cons in order to provide a more united front against their opposition from the Democratic Party.

The bailouts of Wall Street was what really re-energized the base of the paleo-cons of the Republican Party. For years, the base voters of the conservative movement had grown up on paleo-conservative beliefs. However, the faction of neo-conservatives took power and went against those ideals. So while the voter base was heavily paleo-conservatives, it was neo-conservative politicians who came into power on their behalf.

So, in many ways, the Tea Party is a faction of paleo-conservative voters who are acting out not only against Democrats and liberals but also the neo-conservatives within their party. While the neo-conservative politicians were willing to use government dollars to support industries advocated by conservatives, paleo-conservative voters don't want government dollars to support any industries, even those advocated by conservatives.

So this is what I see what the Tea Party is all about. Basically a group of paleo-conservative voters who are attempting to make themselves heard by those of their own broad-based party and reassert paleo-conservatism in the Republican Party.
Click to expand...




I think this post has some merit, however I slightly disagree, while there are indeed many that fit this description, many others including myself are more libertarian than classic social conservatives. The tea party is a grassroots movement made up of libertarians and classic conservatives and indipendents who are tired of the massive spending going on in government.

Remember it started really rolling during the bush bailouts.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
any evidence that it was a karl rove thing or are you talking out your waste ejection port?
Click to expand...

Well I don't know about the Karl Rove thing. But the Tea Party was a good libertarian style movement which was overtaken by Republocrat interests and now serves as nothing more than fodder for talking points on both sides of the isle.
 
Nothing I've heard from the Tea Party has inspired me to take them seriously. I've heard open admissions of racism, a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment, and a general lack of knowledge about how one would actually run a country. Having spoken to Tea Partiers and seen their rallies firsthand, all I saw were arrogant white christians who want to keep all the money for themselves.
 
Paschendale said:
Nothing I've heard from the Tea Party has inspired me to take them seriously. I've heard open admissions of racism, a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment, and a general lack of knowledge about how one would actually run a country. Having spoken to Tea Partiers and seen their rallies firsthand, all I saw were arrogant white christians who want to keep all the money for themselves.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should get your "hearings" of the tea party from somewhere else besides MSNBC....
 
But reverend - Paschendale never mentioned MSNBC. In fact, you seem to have ignored that Paschendale has had first hand experience with tea party people actually attending their rallies and talking to them personally.
 
haymarket said:
But reverend - Paschendale never mentioned MSNBC. In fact, you seem to have ignored that Paschendale has had first hand experience with tea party people actually attending their rallies and talking to them personally.
Click to expand...



He wouldn't be the first one to prevaricate about the tea party. :shrug:
 
Prevaricate?!?! I thought the post from Paschendale was straight forward and clear and was not evasive or dodgy in any way. What better way to get a good feeling for the people in the tea party movement than to actually attend their events and talk to them? I have done the same. I would hope that you could agree that such a first hand experience is much better than getting your impressions from tv or the internet.
 
haymarket said:
Prevaricate?!?! I thought the post from Paschendale was straight forward and clear and was not evasive or dodgy in any way. What better way to get a good feeling for the people in the tea party movement than to actually attend their events and talk to them? I have done the same. I would hope that you could agree that such a first hand experience is much better than getting your impressions from tv or the internet.
Click to expand...



I don't believe he has first hand experience. In other words, I think he's lying. :shrug:
 
Which may be your right. But where does that approach get us in a fair discussion? If somebody gets their impressions of the tea party movement from TV or the internet, they can be criticized for not having first hand experience. if they say they have first have experience, then you dismiss that with a baseless accusation that they are "lying". Where is the room for an honest discussion without you or anyone trying to box them into a corner of your own creation and making judgments about their statement whent you have absolutely not a shred of evidence to back up your accusations?
 
haymarket said:
Which may be your right. But where does that approach get us in a fair discussion? If somebody gets their impressions of the tea party movement from TV or the internet, they can be criticized for not having first hand experience. if they say they have first have experience, then you dismiss that with a baseless accusation that they are "lying". Where is the room for an honest discussion without you or anyone trying to box them into a corner of your own creation and making judgments about their statement whent you have absolutely not a shred of evidence to back up your accusations?
Click to expand...



I've been to liberal rally's and I have seen group sex with animals, and plants. They seem to be into dressing up like clowns and stalking childeren....


Prove me wrong.


I hope you see your fail here.
 
So your answer is post something that is clearly intended to be off-the-wall absurd in answer to another poster who was being sincere? Do you see the problem with adopting your tactics in an environment such as this?

I've been to liberal rally's and I have seen group sex with animals, and plants. They seem to be into dressing up like clowns and stalking childeren....


Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

If that is your honest experience, then it is your experience. So what? I have no interest in attempting to prove your own personal anecdote correct or incorrect.

If someone has the similar experience of Paschendale and posts that - does than then make both persons "LYING" in your eyes? Is that how you deal with any information that is outside your own ideology? You mock it or attack the poster for lying when you have no shred of evidence otherwise?

How can any intelligent discussion be conducted if those tactics are the weapons of choice? Why do you see it necessary to pronounce that other people are liars or that they have failed rather than deal with the substance of their ideas?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So your answer is post something that is clearly intended to be off-the-wall absurd in answer to another poster who was being sincere? Do you see the problem with adopting your tactics in an environment such as this?
Click to expand...


It's equally absurd, it's lies and slander. Sorry you think unsubstantiated claims count as evidence only when you agree with the content.


If that is your honest experience, then it is your experience. So what? I have no interest in attempting to prove your own personal anecdote correct or incorrect.

If someone has the similar experience of Paschendale and posts that - does than then make both persons "LYING" in your eyes? Is that how you deal with any information that is outside your own ideology? You mock it or attack the poster for lying when you have no shred of evidence otherwise?

How can any intelligent discussion be conducted if those tactics are the weapons of choice?
Click to expand...



It makes them "lying" when they are the 4th or 5th person to make such claims. Sorry, This ain't my first rodeo. I as a tea party member, have been to actual tea party events and I can tell you he is full of crap.


So tell me which anecdote do you believe?
 
Why can't both of your experiences be equally as valid? i am sure that the tea party movement has had hundreds of events, perhaps of thousands of events. There is little doubt that they have been attended by hundreds of thousands of people. Neither yourself or anyone could have possibly been to all of them. Neither you nor anyone else could have talked personally to all those people.

Why can't their experience be as equally as valid as yours?

This summer I attended a New York Yankee baseball game at the new Yankee Stadium to see my home team play and both myself and my son wore the jerseys of our home team (not the Yankees) we sat in the bleachers with the common folk and took a bit of good natured ribbing about our loyalties but a good time was had by all and no harm was done. But in relating our experience to others back home we heard a couple of horror stories about people who did much the same thing and Yankee fans sprayed them with beer, made threats to them and even went as far as to start a fight.

Why can't both experiences be valid without anyone lying?
 
haymarket said:
Why can't both of your experiences be equally as valid? i am sure that the tea party movement has had hundreds of events, perhaps of thousands of events. There is little doubt that they have been attended by hundreds of thousands of people. Neither yourself or anyone could have possibly been to all of them. Neither you nor anyone else could have talked personally to all those people.

Why can't their experience be as equally as valid as yours?

This summer I attended a New York Yankee baseball game at the new Yankee Stadium to see my home team play and both myself and my son wore the jerseys of our home team (not the Yankees) we sat in the bleachers with the common folk and took a bit of good natured ribbing about our loyalties but a good time was had by all and no harm was done. But in relating our experience to others back home we heard a couple of horror stories about people who did much the same thing and Yankee fans sprayed them with beer, made threats to them and even went as far as to start a fight.

Why can't both experiences be valid without anyone lying?
Click to expand...



Where is the evidence? The media plays the "Tea party is racist" card and all of the sudden all these liberals are attending tea parties and claiming racism? Please. unless he has pictures or proof, it never happened.


As for Yankees games, we sit Delta Club.
 
haymarket said:
Why can't both of your experiences be equally as valid? i am sure that the tea party movement has had hundreds of events, perhaps of thousands of events. There is little doubt that they have been attended by hundreds of thousands of people. Neither yourself or anyone could have possibly been to all of them. Neither you nor anyone else could have talked personally to all those people.

Why can't their experience be as equally as valid as yours?

This summer I attended a New York Yankee baseball game at the new Yankee Stadium to see my home team play and both myself and my son wore the jerseys of our home team (not the Yankees) we sat in the bleachers with the common folk and took a bit of good natured ribbing about our loyalties but a good time was had by all and no harm was done. But in relating our experience to others back home we heard a couple of horror stories about people who did much the same thing and Yankee fans sprayed them with beer, made threats to them and even went as far as to start a fight.

Why can't both experiences be valid without anyone lying?
Click to expand...

Yankee fans suck. There was one at a Rockies game who tried to get in a fight just because someone poked a little fun at the Yankees. What an ass. Like buying your team to continually win the World Series and in the process overinflate salaries of ball players weren't enough. They gotta try to get in fights because they're the big bad Yankees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Ikari said:
Yankee fans suck. There was one at a Rockies game who tried to get in a fight just because someone poked a little fun at the Yankees. What an ass. Like buying your team to continually win the World Series and in the process overinflate salaries of ball players weren't enough. They gotta try to get in fights because they're the big bad Yankees.
Click to expand...


Basing all of the fans on the actions of one? :ssst:
 
from reverend

Please. unless he has pictures or proof, it never happened.
Click to expand...

Things happen thousands of time every day without pictures. We both know that.

Is the standard of making a logical argument here that everything said must be backed up with pictures or independent evidence or else the person is lying about it?

But there is a deeper issue here rev. If racism is present in almost every culture and in every country and may indeed be part of some persons basic human nature or make-up, why does it become necessary for you to pronounce any and all tea party events 100% racism free? Is it not enough to declare such persons or such beliefs as a likely minority who are the exception to the rule? Why is it necessary to take the extreme and rather illogical position that the tea party events are completely free of racism or racist despite many accounts to the contrary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom