Tea Party - a genuine threat to US Politics?

[hornetrider]

Their backing from 'big business' and stance as 'warming deniers' seems to have got Moonbat in a bit of a tizz.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

Seems like it's kicking off a bit over there.

[deevlash]

Theyre ace.

[Famous Graham]

deevlash said:

Theyre ace.

They're fking mental

[joe_90]

Idiots, that have no plan, just shout OVER YOU TO MAKE THERE POINT BASED ON FOXNEWS.

[Fittster]

joe_90 said:

Idiots, that have no plan.

Which political groups have plans more sophisticated than saying whatever they think will get them elected?

[jeff m]

Now I know why the Gaurdian is mocked as a Newspaper.

I don't support the Tea Party but that is a poor attempt at news, even as an editorial it would have to have been written by someone only a few seats away from Obama.

[IforB]

The Tea Party mob are even more bonkers than Monbigot. If they ever get into any sort of power [Pvt Frazer] We're all doomed. [/Pvt Frazer]

[tinman0]

hornetrider said:

Their backing from 'big business' and stance as 'warming deniers' seems to have got Moonbat in a bit of a tizz.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

Seems like it's kicking off a bit over there.

Tea Party is just a reaction against modern left wing politics in the US. The left walked all over the right in the last election with double standards, for instance mocking Palin for only being governor of Alaska, yet supporting a candidate who had never held any sort of office.

So Obama gets in, the second coming didn't happen, and people are feeling disconnected more than ever. Admittedly the Tea party is appealing to the lunatic fringe right now, but the lunatic fringe are a growing bunch. They'll fall in line with the Republicans, but they are a powerful conservative voice to be heard.

At the end of the day, more Americans can empathize with Palin ("the soccer mom") than they can with Barry (a half black/half white guy from Chicago that has a bit of a dubious past).

[12gauge]

The Tea party was good.

Till Palin and her friends got involved.

I guess it will be subsumed into the Republican-Democrat one party machine now.

[joe_90]

Fittster said:

joe_90 said:

Idiots, that have no plan.

Which political groups have plans more sophisticated than saying whatever they think will get them elected?

They really have no plan.. none at all, its just we need to cut down big goverment spending.. etc etc.. Every single time someone asks them how they would do that they just start screaming OBAMA.. SOCIALISM.. MEDICARE.. etc.. (note all the old people at these rallies on there medicare paid for mobility scooters, which enable them to get to the events!)

They never even venture one single solution.

The joke is that they all say we will stick to the constitution, and they will alway think for the normal person. Now, if any of these harpy's or clowns get to Washington, I give them ten minutes before the machine gets them, all the bungs (sorry, lobbying) etc...

But the danger is that they want God in politics, they even started to argue the 'separation of Church and state' as described in the constitution. They will want Creationism installed in schools as well, watch and see.

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 26th October 14:45

[joe_90]

12gauge said:

The Tea party was good.

Till Palin and her friends got involved.

I guess it will be subsumed into the Republican-Democrat one party machine now.

Correct, originally it was the Ron Paul supporters, now its just be taken over by Palin and the rest of the loonies.

[jeff m]

tinman0 said:

hornetrider said:

Their backing from 'big business' and stance as 'warming deniers' seems to have got Moonbat in a bit of a tizz.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

Seems like it's kicking off a bit over there.

Tea Party is just a reaction against modern left wing politics in the US. The left walked all over the right in the last election with double standards, for instance mocking Palin for only being governor of Alaska, yet supporting a candidate who had never held any sort of office.

So Obama gets in, the second coming didn't happen, and people are feeling disconnected more than ever. Admittedly the Tea party is appealing to the lunatic fringe right now, but the lunatic fringe are a growing bunch. They'll fall in line with the Republicans, but they are a powerful conservative voice to be heard.

At the end of the day, more Americans can empathize with Palin ("the soccer mom") than they can with Barry (a half black/half white guy from Chicago that has a bit of a dubious past).

I'm not sure it is the lunatic fringe, although it does depend on how you set your standards
Their target is middle America, which Obama likes to call the Middle class, he really should get a dictionary. They are after the white voters that put Obama into office, as a splinter group they can shout and create havoc without it affecting the GOP (too much).
Whilst Ms Palin is their greatest asset, she is also loosing some of her mainstream appeal to "normal" Republicans. She is starting to squawk a lot and is becoming reminiscent of Hillary. A squaky bossy female is not appealing to many Americans as they possibly already have one at home.

I'm sure the Tea Party will survive as long as it is needed. Or at least until Obama realises that he is President of ALL of the US, not just the ones that elected him. Most American Presidents, once the elections are over, become the president of everyone, this one either doesn't get it or doesn't care.
Until he does, the Tea Party will thrive, well maybe thrive is a bit strong

[Jimbeaux]

Folks, let's get a perspective here. The "Tea Party" is not a party at all. It is a movement to elect people with certain values. They have no particular plan except to elect people who will be fiscally conservative, not raise taxes, not infringe on personal liberties, and respect state rights. Are there loonies among them? Of course there are; as there are in any party/movement. The difference is the media only focuses on those elements. Tinman0 put it pretty correctly in his earlier post.

[Fittster]

Jimbeaux said:

Folks, let's get a perspective here. The "Tea Party" is not a party at all. It is a movement to elect people with certain values. They have no particular plan except to elect people who will be fiscally conservative, not raise taxes, not infringe on personal liberties, and respect state rights. Are there loonies among them? Of course there are; as there are in any party/movement. The difference is the media only focuses on those elements. Tinman0 put it pretty correctly in his earlier post.

Hasn't the movement changed direction? It was originally a lot more libertarian than it is in it's current form.

[tinman0]

jeff m said:

I'm not sure it is the lunatic fringe, although it does depend on how you set your standards
Their target is middle America, which Obama likes to call the Middle class, he really should get a dictionary. They are after the white voters that put Obama into office, as a splinter group they can shout and create havoc without it affecting the GOP (too much).
Whilst Ms Palin is their greatest asset, she is also loosing some of her mainstream appeal to "normal" Republicans. She is starting to squawk a lot and is becoming reminiscent of Hillary. A squaky bossy female is not appealing to many Americans as they possibly already have one at home.

I'm sure the Tea Party will survive as long as it is needed. Or at least until Obama realises that he is President of ALL of the US, not just the ones that elected him. Most American Presidents, once the elections are over, become the president of everyone, this one either doesn't get it or doesn't care.
Until he does, the Tea Party will thrive, well maybe thrive is a bit strong

Tend to agree, but I wouldn't underestimate the popularity of Palin though. The media hated her with a passion, the left hated her even more, but the average American really is quite partial to the Mrs Palin.

The problem is that whilst many people consider themselves intellectuals, Mrs Palin appeals to a group of Americans that are normal. She speaks their language. And I don't mean uneducated people when I say normal. Just Mr and Mrs American. Yes she says stupid things about Russia, but then, it would be a nice to have a hard talking politician in charge every once in a while.

Look where America is now with Barry and China for instance. GWB laid it down to the Chinese about yaun valuation and they were moving it - GWB is voted out of power and that currency movement stops, and Barry has barely made them think twice. He just doesn't scare them. So is he a bonus to America or a hindrance? Depends if your job is being shipped west/north/east I suppose. (which way is China from the US??).

So Palin other quality that is overlooked/derided/etc that she speaks her mind and this connects with people who are tired of the double talk of the Democrats.

But you are absolutely right Barry only connects with the people who voted for him. But then that was the only outcome.

Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 26th October 15:43

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Jimbeaux said:

Folks, let's get a perspective here. The "Tea Party" is not a party at all.

Oh bks


Now what am I going to do with all this Long Island Iced tea?

[Jimbeaux]

Fittster said:

Jimbeaux said:

Folks, let's get a perspective here. The "Tea Party" is not a party at all. It is a movement to elect people with certain values. They have no particular plan except to elect people who will be fiscally conservative, not raise taxes, not infringe on personal liberties, and respect state rights. Are there loonies among them? Of course there are; as there are in any party/movement. The difference is the media only focuses on those elements. Tinman0 put it pretty correctly in his earlier post.

Hasn't the movement changed direction? It was originally a lot more libertarian than it is in it's current form.

It appears to be a movement that is not centrally controlled; therefore, different areas have different makeups. The only commonality seems to be the core values I listed earlier.

[Jimbeaux]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Jimbeaux said:

Folks, let's get a perspective here. The "Tea Party" is not a party at all.

Oh bks


Now what am I going to do with all this Long Island Iced tea?

[Fittster]

Jimbeaux said:

Fittster said:

Jimbeaux said:

Folks, let's get a perspective here. The "Tea Party" is not a party at all. It is a movement to elect people with certain values. They have no particular plan except to elect people who will be fiscally conservative, not raise taxes, not infringe on personal liberties, and respect state rights. Are there loonies among them? Of course there are; as there are in any party/movement. The difference is the media only focuses on those elements. Tinman0 put it pretty correctly in his earlier post.

Hasn't the movement changed direction? It was originally a lot more libertarian than it is in it's current form.

It appears to be a movement that is not centrally controlled; therefore, different areas have different makeups. The only commonality seems to be the core values I listed earlier.

I won't beat around the bush (sure I should slip in a joke there), hasn't the movement been hijacked/wrestled away from libertarians to Neo-cons? What started with Ron Paul has arrived with Mrs Palin, who are different fringes of the Republican party.

[ErnestM]

Joe_90: There really isn't anything in the Constitution that specifically states the "seperation of Church and State". The first amendment reads (in part) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The "Church and State" phrase was a construct of (at the earliest) Thomas Jefferson, who, in response to a religious order (The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut) said; "..I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State..."

The 1st amendment simply says that the US Congress shall not have authority to establish a religion and that the individual is free to believe (or disbelieve) what he likes.

Interesting that no such prohibition exists in many State Constitutions.

Thomas Jefferson was, at best, agnostic. While he, himself, did not always believe in the benefits of organized religion, he also recognized the potential moral benefits.

We could use a few men like Jefferson today.