toldailytopic: What do you think of the Tea Party movement?

[Newman]

It is already acting very favorable and friendly toward the Libertarian philosophy (ie. immoral conservatives).

:dizzy:

What's with all of the libertarian bashing lately?

I'll have you know that I am staunchly pro-life and a staunch libertarian. They aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they are entirely compatible.

What's your beef?

 

[Uberpod1]

The tea party is fueled by a sham -- the Koch brothers and other ultra-rich who don't want ultra-taxation or silly safety restraints on their industry. It taps an anti-elitist self-engrandizement fantasy. People are empowered to think low to average achievers are more qualified than genuinely talented people. In their minds, community college is better than the Ivy league; being relatable is better than having knowledge, and the Bible is the only textbook in need of mastery.

 

[Ktoyou]

The tea party is fueled by a sham -- the Koch brothers and other ultra-rich who don't want ultra-taxation or silly safety restraints on their industry.

You need to leave here, the rich send their kids to Ivy league colleges!

 

[The Graphite]

And now we see the NRA endorsing pro-abortion Democrat John Salazar, here in Colorado, in opposition to pro-life Republican Scott Tipton!

This is what I was talking about. How clueless does the NRA have to be? As if the right to bear arms trumps abortion?

I agree the right to bear arms trumps almost every other right. But you can't argue for a right to defend your life ... if you don't have a right to live, in the first place. Right to life comes first, otherwise, the right to defend life is moot!

Get a clue, NRA!

 

[Uberpod1]

You need to leave here, the rich send their kids to Ivy league colleges!

Zip it, Granny! And take a nap.

Those rich guys creating pretend grassroots organizations don't really care about the anti-elitist sentiment, but they capitalize on it. :first:

 

[TomO]

"Powered by an engine of misdirected rage". Very well put !!!
Bravo ! I couldn't have put it better myself.
The problem with the tea partiers is that they support politicians,or potential ones who haven't served in any political office, who would be much,much worse than Obama and his administration, or any of the current democrats in Washington, as imperfect as they are .
And it's so presumptuous to compare themselves to the original Americans back in the 18th century who inspired the term they use for themselves.Those tea partiers had legitimate grievances of an entirely different kind.
They claim to want "limited government" ,but too many of them want unlimited power for the government to pry into our bedrooms and elsewhere. They want to bring"morality" back to America. But WHOSE morality? They have absolutely no monopoly on morality and the truth.
They want to "Take America back". But to what? !7th century
New England run by the Puritans? Or the middle ages? This is progress?

In principle, the Tea Party movement is great, and drastically needed to clean up the terribly compromised Republican Party.

But, they need to wrap their head around the fact that blood trumps money -- abortion is absolutely more important than matters of fiscal policy! May we never say that "Bob Smith does support the legal murder of millions of innocent human beings, but I do like his thoughts on tax policy and his position on school choice." The Tea Party must stand on conservative principles, and there is no division between "moral issues" and "fiscal issues," because all fiscal issues are moral issues. Therefore, they cannot be divided or treated separately. And while all political issues are moral issues, some are more important than others. Widespread, "legal" killing of children must be more important than money matters.

The movement is already playing with fire, courting pro-homosexual, pro-abortion RINOs like Sara Palin. It is already acting very favorable and friendly toward the Libertarian philosophy (ie. immoral conservatives). But, this is exactly what corrupted the Republican Party and sent it into the direction it's going in, now. This is what caused the problem to begin with. When the Republican Party began compromising on the most fundamental moral issues (the right to exist), the rest was inevitable. If a man is willing to compromise on the killing of children, what will he not compromise on? It is the "gateway drug" to liberalism for political conservatives. It is the first step on the road to hell.

It is still early. We cannot afford to sell out our conservative moral principles so early in the game to the likes of Palin and others who publicly defend keeping abortion legal. Here in Colorado, we were duped by Dan Maes who claimed to be 100% pro-life. He must be using the Nat'l Right to Life standard of "100%" since as soon as he won the primary he quickly appointed a pro-abortion extremist as his running mate, and publicly trivialized and demeaned the Personhood amendment (62) on the ballot this fall, with dismissive arrogance.

By compromising on these issues, we then continue to play by the big party rules of the GOP, and they do that better than we do. We can't beat them in the "compromised pseudo-conservative politics" game. They've perfected it. The only hope we have is to stand on the righteous standard of Jesus Christ. To do otherwise is to be worldly and yoke ourselves to the world, and there is no hope in that, even if we win elections. After all, what good is it for us to get our guys in office if our guys are the enemy? Is that the victory we yearn to cheer for?

If the Tea Party derails by compromising on such fundamental values as the very right to live... it will be nothing more than Republican Party #2, and what is the point in that?

ITT Moral Conservatives hate on the Tea Party for not being Moral Conservatives while Moral Liberals hate on the Tea Party for being Moral Conservatives. lain:

 

[Granite]

It's interesting you said that. And by interesting I mean expected. But it might not be completely true. I just heard an NPR piece today about the Tea Party and the guy said that the Tea Party is actually composed of a significant number of intelligent people. It's easy to find media coverage of racist signs, etc., but perhaps that truly is the fringe and the majority of them are informed, concerned voters.

You can be plenty smart and still be a useful idiot: look at the western academics who supported Stalin until the truth about old Uncle Joe was obvious and impossible to deny.

The Tea Party movement is angry, sure, but it doesn't seem to be angry about many of the right things. And it's not angry at the right people. And it certainly isn't a crowd I'd like to see dominating the discussion or actually holding a position of any authority. These folks seem stirred up, all right, but they don't seem to have very clear goals. They don't seem able to articulate what they want. And they're getting bankrolled by the same damn people who are putting their money into the GOP and the Democratic party, so it's quickly turning into a farce--especially when you get the likes of Beck and Palin involved.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[chrysostom]

I never really caught on with the tea party. All I know is it is a crowd of protesters that don't want the taxes raised and attacks Obama for making a commitment for not wanting to raise the taxes. I thought Democrats and Republicans want to protest taxes being raised but somehow I see the tea party run by the Republicans that want to raise the taxes.

Are they protesting against themselves?

To me, the tea party is a party of confused protesters. Maybe I'm confused about the tea party. My mind is more set on letting the people do what they want and stick with the plan of studying the Bible, alone, as the Calvinist do.

I have better things to do than hang around these brainers: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/show/

you seem to be as confused about politics
as
you are about religion

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[Nikos]

Maybe I'm confused about the tea party. My mind is more set on letting the people do what they want and stick with the plan of studying the Bible, alone, as the Calvinist do.

You are definitely confused. You don't have the fggyist idea what the Tea Party is. Then you contradict yourself by saying that you want the people to do what they want (free will), and then you admit you are a Calvinist.

 

[TomO]

I never really caught on with the tea party. All I know is it is a crowd of protesters that don't want the taxes raised and attacks Obama for making a commitment for not wanting to raise the taxes. I thought Democrats and Republicans want to protest taxes being raised but somehow I see the tea party run by the Republicans that want to raise the taxes.

Are they protesting against themselves?

To me, the tea party is a party of confused protesters. Maybe I'm confused about the tea party.

:squint: Certainly looks that way.

My mind is more set on letting the people do what they want and stick with the plan of studying the Bible, alone, as the Calvinist do.

Good policy. lain:

 

[TomO]

You are definitely confused. You don't have the fggyist idea what the Tea Party is. Then you contradict yourself by saying that you want the people to do what they want (free will), and then you admit you are a Calvinist.

:rotfl:

 

[Nydhogg]

And now we see the NRA endorsing pro-abortion Democrat John Salazar, here in Colorado, in opposition to pro-life Republican Scott Tipton!

This is what I was talking about. How clueless does the NRA have to be? As if the right to bear arms trumps abortion?

I agree the right to bear arms trumps almost every other right. But you can't argue for a right to defend your life ... if you don't have a right to live, in the first place. Right to life comes first, otherwise, the right to defend life is moot!

Get a clue, NRA!

Of course! The NRA is SOLELY a gun rights organization. It is supposed to endorse pro-gun candidates, not general conservatives.

YES, the right to bear arms does and SHOULD trump everything else for a GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION!

It is, AND SHOULD BE, a single-issue platform. Don't taint the NRA with your socially conservative agenda.



And gun rights trump EVERYTHING. Without the right and capacity for rebellion there is no freedom, there's servitude.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[WizardofOz]

The thing I like about the Tea Party is look how mad it makes these establishment Repubs...

Check out Karl Rove bashing Christine O'Connel because she waxed the loser liberal Repub Mike Castle in Delaware. :rotfl:

Christine O'Donnell

BTW - How is "teabag" vulgar? I keep seeing posts reported because the term is used. That's kinda like being offended by "rod" or "balls". If someone is offended by the use, they should probably look at themselves. These terms are benign although they can be used in a vulgar way.

Calling the tea party "tea baggers" is in no way vulgar. At least I don't see it. :idunno:

Which makes me think; if they want to be taken seriously, come up with a better name. Bunch of tea sippers.

 

[Nydhogg]

It's a cheap jab filled with sexual innuendo.

Still, if "demonrat" is an allowed term, "teabagger" also should.

If one side is allowed to satirize, demean and belittle the other, both should.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[WizardofOz]

Don't tell me that the teabag is a race, sex or religion.

OK. I didn't and I won't start to now

At my former large corporation, I was given a list of words I should'nt say or use. I couldn't call my friends "boy" or "monkey". Times has changed!

I think I can see where they were coming from.

Teabag?
Give me a break!

I agree there. There is nothing offensive about it. All kinds of normal words have slang references and innuendo. Let's not go overboard on the PC business.