The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Tea baggers hard at work...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_obama_billboard

I believe they prefer "tea party".

But yes, it's not helping their cause all that much.

Palin's asking the NAACP to remove the resolution condemning the tea party for racism.



(http://action.naacp.org/page/-/TeaParty/nword.jpg)

(http://action.naacp.org/page/-/TeaParty/whiteslavery.jpg)

(http://action.naacp.org/page/-/TeaParty/hitler.jpg)

(http://action.naacp.org/page/-/TeaParty/jews.jpg)

That's an adjective, not a noun.


And this interesting little tidbit explains the Murdoch Effect.  Even when confronted with the truth, incorrect beliefs become more firmly entrenched.

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More?art_pos=4

Wow, the NPR interview linked from Slashdot is interesting stuff. Thanks, Mr. Asparagus.

The billboard was removed.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20100714_13_0_Iowabi139868 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20100714_13_0_Iowabi139868)

There's an anti-Obama billboard just south of Poteau.  It features the Obama "O" symbol on fire.  Are they saying they want to burn the President?  Maybe the Secret Service should investigate.  Whoever paid for that billboard is petty, childish and disrespectful.

Quote from: bugo on July 14, 2010, 05:56:20 PM
There's an anti-Obama billboard just south of Poteau.  It features the Obama "O" symbol on fire.  Are they saying they want to burn the President?  Maybe the Secret Service should investigate.  Whoever paid for that billboard is petty, childish and disrespectful.

Welcome to Oklahoma, the reddest state in the country (no, I'm not talking about communism, either).

Quote from: bugo on July 14, 2010, 05:56:20 PM
There's an anti-Obama billboard just south of Poteau.  It features the Obama "O" symbol on fire.  Are they saying they want to burn the President?  Maybe the Secret Service should investigate.  Whoever paid for that billboard is petty, childish and disrespectful.

Isn't Elohim City down around there?

North of Poteau in Adair county.
North of Sallisaw...

Quote from: bugo on July 14, 2010, 05:56:20 PM
Whoever paid for that billboard is petty, childish and disrespectful.

Damned right. Can't we just go back to the day when throwing shoes at a sitting U.S. president was not petty, childish, or disrespectful? Thank you.

(http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2009/01/20090120_blowupbush_560x375.jpg)

Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2010, 01:06:47 PM
Damned right. Can't we just go back to the day when throwing shoes at a sitting U.S. president was not petty, childish, or disrespectful? Thank you.

I'd rather go back to the days when it was considered petty and disrespectful. ;)

Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2010, 01:06:47 PM
Damned right. Can't we just go back to the day when throwing shoes at a sitting U.S. president was not petty, childish, or disrespectful? Thank you.

(http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2009/01/20090120_blowupbush_560x375.jpg)

I didn't support comparing Bush to Hitler and I don't support the Obama comparison.

The difference here is, that kind of disrespectful and inflammatory rhetoric, even under the deeply unpopular Bush (who had far lower approval ratings than Obama has now), was still mostly relegated to the fringe of the left. The right has now mainstreamed this crap. Congratulation Guido, you are no longer the fringe.

But, that is also why the right will have a hard time winning any national elections.

Quote from: swake on July 17, 2010, 09:33:12 AM
The difference here is, that kind of disrespectful and inflammatory rhetoric, even under the deeply unpopular Bush (who had far lower approval ratings than Obama has now), was still mostly relegated to the fringe of the left. The right has now mainstreamed this crap.

As I remember you must be correct, the mainstream left NEVER said unkind things about Bush II.  I won't argue about specific references to the WWII German leader.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 17, 2010, 09:51:54 AM
As I remember you must be correct, the mainstream left NEVER said unkind things about Bush II.  I won't argue about specific references to the WWII German leader.

there is a gulf of difference between being upset and disagreeing over policy or decisions in a democracy and the screams of socialist!, communist!, Muslim!, Hitler!, fascist! that is so common from most of the right today and threats of revolution, succession and second amendment solutions coming from even Republican party leaders. Especially from the person (Palin) that looks today at least like the likely Republican presidential candidate.

Quote from: swake on July 17, 2010, 09:33:12 AM
I didn't support comparing Bush to Hitler and I don't support the Obama comparison.

The difference here is, that kind of disrespectful and inflammatory rhetoric, even under the deeply unpopular Bush (who had far lower approval ratings than Obama has now), was still mostly relegated to the fringe of the left....

Meet the "fringe" left:

MSNBC:



Senate Majority Leader:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/07/politics/main693713.shtml

Congress:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/rep_stark_apologizes_for_sharp.html

Paul McCartney:



Finally, as for being called a "socialist", well I guess the right has been successful in turning 55% of Americans into mindless rubes:

QuoteIn other words, 55 percent of likely voters think "socialist" is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 12:06:23 PM
Finally, as for being called a "socialist", well I guess the right has been successful in turning 55% of Americans into mindless rubes:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

I would never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.

The majority of Americans also don't believe in evolution and can't name a single Supreme Court Justice but do believe in Ghosts.

Boo.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/29/opinion/polls/main994766.shtml

http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/poll-finds-most-americans-cant-name-any-supreme-court-justices/19500941

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 12:06:23 PM
Finally, as for being called a "socialist", well I guess the right has been successful in turning 55% of Americans into mindless rubes:

If the right had been so diligent about calling Obama peanut butter as they have calling him a socialist, the public at large would associate Obama with peanut butter.

Why is Paul McCartney up there? 

Quote from: we vs us on July 17, 2010, 05:08:51 PM
Why is Paul McCartney up there? 

I guess he is a "fringe" guy after all. Still amused that 20 months after Bush has left people still out there ripping on him personally (as opposed to policy reasons).

Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 01:22:09 PM
If the right had been so diligent about calling Obama peanut butter as they have calling him a socialist, the public at large would associate Obama with peanut butter.

Aww, poor Obama gettin' his wittle feewings hurt. I will do a quick search of this forum for your concern over Palin being called stupid all the time, or that she was credited with making the "I can see Russia from my house" quote.

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 05:23:11 PM
Aww, poor Obama gettin' his wittle feewings hurt.

Wow, I didn't think my post would fly so far over your head. Sorry about that.

My point was that if you attach a label to someone enough times people will associate the person with that label, even when the label is completely inaccurate.

I don't really know how you got anything about hurt feelings from that.

Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 05:43:50 PM
Wow, I didn't think my post would fly so far over your head. Sorry about that.

My point was that if you attach a label to someone enough times people will associate the person with that label, even when the label is completely inaccurate.

I don't really know how you got anything about hurt feelings from that.

Amazes me too; I thought intelligent people served as officers of our court system...

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 05:21:03 PM
I guess he is a "fringe" guy after all. Still amused that 20 months after Bush has left people still out there ripping on him personally (as opposed to policy reasons).

You brought Bush into this, not me.

How many states are there.... ??? ??? ???

Quote from: swake on July 17, 2010, 05:57:10 PM
You brought Bush into this, not me.

I know. I wasn't really calling you out on this. Just that the "fringe" in this country is not behaving as such any more and the detractors on both sides are both loud and influential.

Quote from: Breadburner on July 17, 2010, 06:03:10 PM
How many states are there.... ??? ??? ???

How many 'morans' does the tea party have?

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg)

Do they not realize that the 'guvmint' runs Medicare and has since the 60s?

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/u/2/guvmint-out-of-my-medicare.jpg)

Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 05:43:50 PM
Wow, I didn't think my post would fly so far over your head. Sorry about that.

My point was that if you attach a label to someone enough times people will associate the person with that label, even when the label is completely inaccurate.

I don't really know how you got anything about hurt feelings from that.

I guess my analogy to Sarah Palin being tagged with the "I can see Russia from my house" quote went over your head because that is exactly in line with your point. The fact is, Palin NEVER said that, but that doesn't stop dooshbags in this forum and throughout the country from saying/believing she did.

As for the socialist tag on Obama; do you believe it is unwarranted? He brought that all on himself by telling JTP that it was good to "spread the wealth around". Oh, and here's Al Sharpton arguing this country voted for socialism when it elected Obama:

Quote from: Breadburner on July 17, 2010, 06:03:10 PM
How many states are there.... ??? ??? ???

And in those states, how many are fans of the Nitaly Lions or were former corpse-men?

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 06:31:18 PM
I guess my analogy to Sarah Palin being tagged with the "I can see Russia from my house" quote went over your head because that is exactly in line with your point. The fact is, Palin NEVER said that, but that doesn't stop dooshbags in this forum and throughout the country from saying/believing she did.

As for the socialist tag on Obama; do you believe it is unwarranted? He brought that all on himself by telling JTP that it was good to "spread the wealth around". Oh, and here's Al Sharpton arguing this country voted for socialism when it elected Obama:

Good for Al. Please identify which elected officials of the Democratic Party have claimed that Sarah Palin said that.

I shouldn't be asking, as it grants credence to your false equivalence, but I really am interested to know. "Stupid" or "smart" is a relative opinion. "Socialist" or "capitalist" is a fact.

P.S. Your post seemed more to be about Obama getting his "poor feewings hurt" than anything else. I guess I misread the tone.

Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 06:50:25 PM
P.S. Your post seemed more to be about Obama getting his "poor feewings hurt" than anything else. I guess I misread the tone.

Come on, politics is a bloodsport. That's why I care very little about politicians who get their feelings hurt over labeling. I just want consistency in the treatment each side gets from the other side. BTW, Obama can take it, and so can Palin (and they each "take it" just fine and don't need us covering for them).

The tea baggers are not unlike the Know Nothing Party prior to the Civil War.  Where the tea baggers are largely anti-tax, the Know Nothings were mostly against Irish and German immigration.  They were an offshoot of the Whigs, and in the 1840s and 1850s they managed to siphon votes away from the Whigs, seriously damaging them, eventually leading to the formation of the Republican party.

I have to wonder if the tea party will do much the same to the Republicans, not that I have any great sympathy for the party, but I think it ill serves the country to have an opposition that is viewed as an extremist group.  I'm hardly alone in that view.  I've started reading the Frum Forum, a conservative blog recommending that the Republican Party jettison the right wing crazies.

http://www.frumforum.com/ (http://www.frumforum.com/)  

(Here comes the obligatory swipe!)  When the Tea Party has Victoria Jackson as one of their intellectual luminaries, you know they're going to be a temporary phenomenon.  

Quote from: Ed W on July 17, 2010, 07:13:15 PM
(Here comes the obligatory swipe!)  When the Tea Party has Victoria Jackson as one of their intellectual luminaries, you know they're going to be a temporary phenomenon.  

And then there's this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39848.html

At least Bachmann has more gravitas than Victoria Jackson, Guido, and I seem to recall she was the one who said she could see Russia from her house....in Minnesota.

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 07:19:31 PM
And then there's this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39848.html

And so likely ends the power of the Republican Party, the fringe is now completely taking over and it remains to be seen if Tea Partiers can be elected in any numbers at all even in local general elections much less in state wide and national elections.

Quote from: guido911 on July 17, 2010, 07:09:52 PM
Come on, politics is a bloodsport. That's why I care very little about politicians who get their feelings hurt over labeling.

Nobody said anybody's feelings were hurt. I said that the reason the poll you cited showed over 50% of respondents believing Obama is a socialist was because of the repeated misapplication of the label by elected Republicans and conservative pundits. That response has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the statement, only that it's been repeated endlessly.

Ed, I completely agree that the fringes, but especially the right wing fringe because it's so prominent at the moment, have got to go. There is no more a mandate for a full on socialist economic system than there is for full on libertarianism. (or whatever the hell the Tea Party wants..they seem to have difficulty communicating concrete goals)

Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 08:03:50 PM
Nobody said anybody's feelings were hurt. I said that the reason the poll you cited showed over 50% of respondents believing Obama is a socialist was because of the repeated misapplication of the label by elected Republicans and conservative pundits. That response has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the statement, only that it's been repeated endlessly.

In the grand scheme of world politics, Obama is a center-rightist. 

Quote
Ed, I completely agree that the fringes, but especially the right wing fringe because it's so prominent at the moment, have got to go. There is no more a mandate for a full on socialist economic system than there is for full on libertarianism. (or whatever the hell the Tea Party wants..they seem to have difficulty communicating concrete goals)

I predict that the GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like a Mitt Romney.  This will anger the Teabaggers and the Fundamentalist Christian wing of the GOP who would never vote for a "socialist" from Massachusetts or a Mormon.  They will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate.  This will split the vote, leading to an easy Obama victory.  If it happens, you heard it here first.

Quote from: Townsend on July 14, 2010, 10:28:31 AM
Palin's asking the NAACP to remove the resolution condemning the tea party for racism.

Well, Sarah has been part of the Tea party Express. I wonder if she's going to change her mind about the NAACP resolution now?

This is a "joke" from Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams (and the Tea Party Express has refused to fire Williams)

Quote
Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew
NAACP Head Colored Person

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/18/2010-07-18_tea_party_express_leader_mark_williams_expelled_over_colored_people_letter.html

The national Tea Party federation to their great credit has kicked Williams and the Tea Party Express out of the federation (since they won't fire him). What will Sarah have to say about this man and the major Tea Party group that he used to run that refuses to find any fault with his behavior here? A group she has worked with? Just so you know, while this letter is way over the top, it really nothing new for this racist donkey.

Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2010, 08:03:50 PM
Ed, I completely agree that the fringes, but especially the right wing fringe because

Nathan agrees more with the left than the right.

They both need to go.  I like Pelosi and Reid about as much as you like Inhofe and Coburn.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 18, 2010, 09:43:06 PM
They both need to go.  I like Pelosi and Reid about as much as you like Inhofe and Coburn.

I'll give you Pelosi (she is from San Francisco, after all), but Reid isn't very left wing, unless you have a very strange definition of it. The lefties in the Democratic Party all hate him. I do also, but because he's completely ineffective.

Sometimes I forget that being in Oklahoma, the center is skewed even farther rightward than it is in most of the rest of the country.

Quote from: swake on July 18, 2010, 06:55:25 PM
Well, Sarah has been part of the Tea party Express. I wonder if she's going to change her mind about the NAACP resolution now?

This is a "joke" from Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams (and the Tea Party Express has refused to fire Williams)

Holy crap. That's the first time I've read the letter in full. The guy was trying satire, but that's just a big steaming pile of FAIL right there. That's the kind of junk you'd read in Deep South newspapers during the Jim Crow era.

I wouldn't let that guy walk my dog, much less let him run an insurgent political campaign.

Quote from: swake on July 17, 2010, 07:44:38 PM
And so likely ends the power of the Republican Party, the fringe is now completely taking over and it remains to be seen if Tea Partiers can be elected in any numbers at all even in local general elections much less in state wide and national elections.

You know, that's what they were worried about with the infiltration of the Moral Majority back in the 1980's and 20 out of 28 years of White House Control followed along with a 12 year majority in the House and Senate.  Someone figured out, apparently pretty correctly, that Christians vote and that the social agenda of the Democrat Party was starting to depart from core Christian beliefs.

I've not paid close enough attention to the Tea Partiers other than to gather that it's a small government movement that wants less government intervention and control, less government waste, is tired of Washington giving huge hand-outs to special interests in exchange for power, and is against high deficit spending.  I really don't see what's so whacked out about that.  Why would anyone be for the government spending and needing an ever increasing flow of cash? 

But I think they've been mis-portrayed as a bunch of racist, anti-tax, radical separatists.  Some of that probably is far out fringe that's managed to catch the eye of the media but would typify maybe a percent or two of those involved in the movement.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 09:09:05 AM
But I think they've been mis-portrayed as a bunch of racist, anti-tax, radical separatists.  Some of that probably is far out fringe that's managed to catch the eye of the media but would typify maybe a percent or two of those involved in the movement.

The Tea Party is a loose group whose unifying principal really is hatred of government in general and hatred of Obama in particular. Some of that hate is positively race based. Certainly a great deal, if not most of that hate is policy driven but the extreme kind of hate and irrational statements made by the leaders of the movement even if not racial based is harmful to the country and probably nearly unelectable in most states. Republicans under Reagan knew what they were for as much as they knew what they were against, this current group can't agree on anything more substantial than gross generalities like "smaller government and less taxes".

I think you need to relook at the Tea Party groups. Look at the letter I posted from one of the founders and leaders of one of, if not the main large Tea Party group, the one the Palin has made a bunch of her speaking engagements with. The Governor of Texas has advocated succession and then there's Michelle Bachmann, a real nut job who is now taking more formal leadership role, as said in the article above. Here is a nice rational quote from her "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps.", that's stupid and meant to scare the sheep into thinking Obama is going to start rounding people up into camp. What about some of what Palin has said? How about her "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil"? Death panels, really?

This crap isn't coming from the fringe of the Tea Party groups, it's front and center.

Quote from: swake on July 19, 2010, 09:59:29 AM
Some of that hate is positively race based.

Swake channeling his inner NAACP membership.

Modified to add:  Look at the attacks on the tea party on this page (other than Williams)...Victoria Jackson, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin. Sounds like gender based discrimination is on full display. Makes sense under you and others' thinking.

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 10:17:32 AM
Swake channeling his inner NAACP membership.

Modified to add:  Look at the attacks on the tea party on this page (other than Williams)...Victoria Jackson, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin. Sounds like gender based discrimination is on full display. Makes sense under you and others' thinking.

I think if you check I also mention Mark Williams and the Governor of Texas (Rick Perry, not a woman)

But nice shift on the argument without addressing any material facts.

The danger in the Tea Party groups is not their motivation, that will be defined by their opponents.  The danger is that their lack of coherence only serves to fracture any movement toward a more "common sense" based government.

The goals to reduce spending, end corruption, and promote individual freedom over government control has become the common sentiment of the general public (both Democrat and Republican).  The current administrations loss of independent support has opened up a vacuum that the Tea Party movement is attempting to fill.  The problem is that the Tea Party has no defined leadership, and while they see this as a strength, it becomes a weakness because it allows them to be defined by their fringe and by their opponents both Republican and Democrat. 

Meanwhile the American Public is still seeking rescue from what has become a drastic lapse of judgment.  The Tea Party forces candidates to walk a narrow line between endorsement and betrayal.

The Tea Party may end up being the Democratic party's best tool.  But the Dems must tread lightly, lest they destroy the Tea Party too early in the game giving rise to a more organized conservative effort before the presidential elections of 2012.  On the other hand, conservative forces know this too, and I'm sure that multiple scenarios exist.

The Tea Party will force some decisions in the upcoming midterms.  It will not be pretty for both Democrats and Republicans, and how the major parties react will determine the Tea Party's roll in the next presidential election.  It certainly is a fascinating phenomena.

Quote from: swake on July 19, 2010, 09:59:29 AM
The Tea Party is a loose group whose unifying principal really is hatred of government in general and hatred of Obama in particular. Some of that hate is positively race based. Certainly a great deal, if not most of that hate is policy driven but the extreme kind of hate and irrational statements made by the leaders of the movement even if not racial based is harmful to the country and probably nearly unelectable in most states. Republicans under Reagan knew what they were for as much as they knew what they were against, this current group can't agree on anything more substantial than gross generalities like "smaller government and less taxes".

I think you need to relook at the Tea Party groups. Look at the letter I posted from one of the founders and leaders of one of, if not the main large Tea Party group, the one the Palin has made a bunch of her speaking engagements with. The Governor of Texas has advocated succession and then there's Michelle Bachmann, a real nut job who is now taking more formal leadership role, as said in the article above. Here is a nice rational quote from her "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps.", that's stupid and meant to scare the sheep into thinking Obama is going to start rounding people up into camp. What about some of what Palin has said? How about her "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil"? Death panels, really?

This crap isn't coming from the fringe of the Tea Party groups, it's front and center.

Williams has been jettisoned as undesireable in the Tea Party ranks, so I think that speaks clearly that racist sentiment or anything which can be construed as such by bed-wetting liberals won't be tolerated.

Name one politician who doesn't use fear to gain or retain power, or to pass a controversial measure.  I seriously doubt you can.  That's a large part of politics: exploiting fear for gain. 

How do you think we got Obamacare? "How many more people need to die before we pass this?" 
The stimulus? "Worst economy since the Great Depression". 
TARP: "Banks and insurance companies will collapse taking your savings"
The Iraq war: "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." (No less than former President Clinton joined the chorus telling Larry King there was no doubt there were unaccounted for WMD the day he left office.)

The claims and accusations by the left tells me they are incredibly fearful of the Tea Party sentiment otherwise they would not be working so hard to discredit and distort what most of these people seem to believe in by citing the only examples who make the case for Tea Partiers being far right gun-hugging nut jobs. 

And for the record I'm a gun-hugger but not a gun-hugging nut-job.  ;)

Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 10:39:48 AM

The goals to reduce spending, end corruption, and promote individual freedom over government control has become the common sentiment of the general public (both Democrat and Republican).

OK, that brings up interesting questions ...

If you reduce spending in a cash-strapped economy, does the Tea Party realize it will deepen the recession?

These questions should be asked: What employment rate will you tolerate in return for less government spending? 15%? 20%? 30%?

How much longer should a deep recession go in return for less government spending?

Do you want troops out of Afghanistan to lessen defense spending?

Do you want fewer Medicare benefits when you're older?

Those are the big questions that no one really wants to contemplate. But if you're going to be serious about government cuts, you'll have to consider them.

As for corruption, that's been a problem since our republic began. I've read enough history books to realize this is not new, and that it requires a lot of vigilance to nominally control it. SSDD.

As for individual freedoms, what exactly has been lost in recent years? Last I checked, you can still travel all over this country anytime or anywhere you wish. You can still go to any church you please. You can still write letters to the editor or post on Internet forums. If you've got money, you can buy just about any lawful product there is out there. And, in recent, months the right to bear arms has been strengthened, not weakened.

I keep hearing about a loss of freedom, but where?

Quote from: swake on July 19, 2010, 10:29:53 AM
I think if you check I also mention Mark Williams and the Governor of Texas (Rick Perry, not a woman)

But nice shift on the argument without addressing any material facts.

I saw your reference to Perry, just not on MY page of this thread. As for your "material" facts, show me one. You and others are pi$$ed about a freakin billboard and one guy's letter and paint with the broadest brush imaginable that the tea partiers are racist. Well back at you. All you Palin/Bachman (and other women who dare to voice an opinion against Obama) haters, you are misogynists. See how easy that works?

As for me, I attended two "tea parties" last year and I can say with a measurable degree of certainty that I have done more to vindicate the rights of minorities and women that you could ever hope.  But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, I couldn't give a bigger smile.

Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 11:07:47 AM
OK, that brings up interesting questions ...

If you reduce spending in a cash-strapped economy, does the Tea Party realize it will deepen the recession?

These questions should be asked: What employment rate will you tolerate in return for less government spending? 15%? 20%? 30%?

How much longer should a deep recession go in return for less government spending?

Do you want troops out of Afghanistan to lessen defense spending?

Do you want fewer Medicare benefits when you're older?

Those are the big questions that no one really wants to contemplate. But if you're going to be serious about government cuts, you'll have to consider them.

As for corruption, that's been a problem since our republic began. I've read enough history books to realize this is not new, and that it requires a lot of vigilance to nominally control it. SSDD.

As for individual freedoms, what exactly has been lost in recent years? Last I checked, you can still travel all over this country anytime or anywhere you wish. You can still go to any church you please. You can still write letters to the editor or post on Internet forums. If you've got money, you can buy just about any lawful product there is out there. And, in recent, months the right to bear arms has been strengthened, not weakened.

I keep hearing about a loss of freedom, but where?

Not all government spending creates jobs nor improves our economy. 

There's sentiment about loss of freedom when people start to fear they cannot use the health care plan they've become accustomed to due to government mandate.  Redistribution of wealth is seen as a loss of freedom when the government can simply decide to raise taxes at any time with minimal discussion or input from the public and confiscate legally-earned income.

Finally, us gun-huggers always fear jack-booted government thugs showing up at our doors to ask for our assault rifles every time a Democrat becomes President. I think it's a basic rule of gun ownership ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 11:21:32 AM
Not all government spending creates jobs nor improves our economy. 

There's sentiment about loss of freedom when people start to fear they cannot use the health care plan they've become accustomed to due to government mandate.  Redistribution of wealth is seen as a loss of freedom when the government can simply decide to raise taxes at any time with minimal discussion or input from the public and confiscate legally-earned income.

1) More money in a cash-strapped economy is a good thing. This is Economics 101.

2) The "sentiment" doesn't match reality. The health-care law allows people to keep their current health plans.

3) What tax-rate raise are you referring to? Tax rates were dropped during the last stimulus bill. Where is this redistribution of wealth that you speak?

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 11:20:30 AM
But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, I couldn't give a bigger smile.

TulsaNow's censor machine puts out inadvertently funny stuff once in a while.  :D

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 11:21:32 AM
Not all government spending creates jobs nor improves our economy. 

You sure as smile got that right:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJnwMBE7xMJZVNt_R997OWO3fIVQD9H1O0JG3

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 11:20:30 AM

As for me, I attended two "tea parties" last year and I can say with a measurable degree of certainty that I have done more to vindicate the rights of minorities and women that you could ever hope.

In that case, let's have a detailed accounting of what you've actually done.

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 11:20:30 AM
I saw your reference to Perry, just not on MY page of this thread. As for your "material" facts, show me one. You and others are pi$$ed about a freakin billboard and one guy's letter and paint with the broadest brush imaginable that the tea partiers are racist. Well back at you. All you Palin/Bachman (and other women who dare to voice an opinion against Obama) haters, you are misogynists. See how easy that works?

As for me, I attended two "tea parties" last year and I can say with a measurable degree of certainty that I have done more to vindicate the rights of minorities and women that you could ever hope.  But if it makes you feel better to call me a racist, I couldn't give a bigger smile.

My material facts are quotes from Tea Party leaders spouting the kind of stupid crap that used to only live on the fringes of the political spectrum. Not just a single person here and there, but from the founder of the one of the largest Tea Party groups, the governor of Texas, the most recent Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate and a congressional Tea Party leader. These aren't just individual idiots with signs in a crowd or some stupid back bench congressman, these are actual leaders of the Tea Party movement and now the Republican Party.

And lets be very clear, I am not saying that all Tea Party people are racists, nor am I saying that you are racist. I am saying that when you base a movement on hate and anger, it's not surprising that some elements of that group are going to be racists. The Black Power movement is rife with them as can be seen in the "New" Black Panthers. That you can't accept that there are many racists involved with the Tea Party movement including some leaders (as documented in that letter) shows how far to the fringe you personally are.

What I am specifically saying is that many, probably most people in the Tea Party movement are there for real policy disagreements, these would be your engaged and hard core, more serious conservatives. Many more are there because they have been scared by all this inflammatory, stupid and sophomoric rhetoric, these would be your sheeple. But then there are some there out of only hate, some racial hate, some people that just hate taxes (often people caught for cheating on taxes) and then also a good deal of people that also just hate government, though that movement very often overlaps with the people that hate based on race.

It's up to the serious conservatives to take control of the movement, to quickly shun idiots and their groups like Mark Williams (as was done by that one umbrella group, good for them) and to also call on idiots like Perry and Bachmann tone down the rhetoric to be more honest and more realistic and constructive in tone. Then and only then will the Tea Party have a real chance as a real constructive conservative political movement. Until then the Tea Party movement is only are going to hurt the Republican Party in the long term.

This what racism really looks like:

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 11:34:55 AM
You sure as smile got that right:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJnwMBE7xMJZVNt_R997OWO3fIVQD9H1O0JG3

Interestingly, GM has kept all the dealers that were worth anything, despite the initial plan to close them.

And Conan, you forget that the Republicans do exactly the same thing to Democrats. You guys pretty much only talk about the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 11:35:19 AM
In that case, let's have a detailed accounting of what you've actually done.

I do not need to lay out my creds to the likes of you. But if it makes you feel better, I have represented numerous minorities, women, the elderly, and disabled in federal civil rights and discrimination cases and obtained relief for them. Now, tell us what you have done. Seriously, other than gripe, tell us how you have rolled up your sleeves and really done something to advance the rights of others.

Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 11:07:47 AM
OK, that brings up interesting questions ...

If you reduce spending in a cash-strapped economy, does the Tea Party realize it will deepen the recession?

I think it's the type of spending currently in question.  It's also long term program spending vs short term stimulus in the form of incentives.

These questions should be asked: What employment rate will you tolerate in return for less government spending? 15%? 20%? 30%?

See above.

How much longer should a deep recession go in return for less government spending?

See above.

Do you want troops out of Afghanistan to lessen defense spending?

Yes.  At least I do, as do most Libertarians and we have that in common with the Tea Party group.  70% of our spending goes to military endeavors and support.  We need a strong military, but our current operations in Afghanistan is nothing more than a token.  Without the ability to truly engage our enemies, or even identify them for what they are, we cannot fight them.  It has become a politically correct war, and will therefore be more expensive in life and resources.  We are not ferocious.  We have lost our teeth.  We do not know our enemy, because to do so would be discriminatory. 

It is not acceptable to be proactive, therefore we are simply forced to react, and we cannot win a war that way.

Do you want fewer Medicare benefits when you're older?

Yes.  The system is currently unsustainable and bankrupt.  A percentage of the medical fees I pay now go to take up the slack for the ridiculous reimbursement rates that physicians and hospitals have to make up for from accepting Medicare.  Each citizen will pay hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars into the system and only reap a fraction of that in actual care.

Those are the big questions that no one really wants to contemplate. But if you're going to be serious about government cuts, you'll have to consider them.

That's right.  Both parties are going to have to wrestle this alligator, because if we don't, we will destroy ourselves.

As for corruption, that's been a problem since our republic began. I've read enough history books to realize this is not new, and that it requires a lot of vigilance to nominally control it. SSDD.

As for individual freedoms, what exactly has been lost in recent years? Last I checked, you can still travel all over this country anytime or anywhere you wish. You can still go to any church you please. You can still write letters to the editor or post on Internet forums. If you've got money, you can buy just about any lawful product there is out there. And, in recent, months the right to bear arms has been strengthened, not weakened.

Not so much the loss but the threat of loss.  There are things that we know about the current administration.  If they could pass a single payer medical system NOW, they would.  If they could tighten restrictions on the second amendment NOW, they would.  If they could regulate more sectors of the economy NOW, they would.  If they could intact an amnesty program in exchange for votes NOW, they would. 

I keep hearing about a loss of freedom, but where?

You had thoughtful responses until you got here:

Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 12:21:39 PM

Not so much the loss but the threat of loss.  There are things that we know about the current administration.  If they could pass a single payer medical system NOW, they would.  If they could tighten restrictions on the second amendment NOW, they would.  If they could regulate more sectors of the economy NOW, they would.  If they could intact an amnesty program in exchange for votes NOW, they would. 

You're basing your response on conjecture instead of facts. The administration said from the beginning of the health-care debate that single-payer was not a requirement for passage. The regulation of the economy has been prudent, common-sense measures that were discussed by both parties before the 2008 elections. Gun-control also never was an Obama agenda item. And amnesty to illegal immigrants has received bipartisan support, and was started first by a Republican president.

You've got certain wide-eyed elements that see the president as a radical, where most rightly see him as a cautious, moderate president.

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 12:11:12 PM
I do not need to lay out my creds to the likes of you. But if it makes you feel better, I have represented numerous minorities, women, the elderly, and disabled in federal civil rights and discrimination cases and obtained relief for them. Now, tell us what you have done. Seriously, other than gripe, tell us how you have rolled up your sleeves and really done something to advance the rights of others.

Dude, you're the one who claimed to have been such a champion of minorities. I asked for specifics. You provided none. How do I know you're not just blowing smoke?

Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 12:41:09 PM
Dude, you're the one who claimed to have been such a champion of minorities.

Translation:  I have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of civil rights.

Quote from: guido911 on July 19, 2010, 12:44:25 PM
Translation:  I have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of civil rights.

You said it, not me.  :D

Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 12:39:50 PM
You had thoughtful responses until you got here:

You're basing your response on conjecture instead of facts. The administration said from the beginning of the health-care debate that single-payer was not a requirement for passage.

Not a requirement, but obviously the goal.

The regulation of the economy has been prudent, common-sense measures that were discussed by both parties before the 2008 elections.

Again this is not a Republican VS Democrat issue.  Is a people vs their government issue.  There is currently negative sentiment attached to economic regulation.  If the vehicle is not moving fast enough, installing a governor is of little use.  Sorry, just some more of that common sense.

Gun-control also never was an Obama agenda item.

Perhaps but the mere fact that he came from a position in favor of gun control when he was a senator, gives the threat breath.


And amnesty to illegal immigrants has received bipartisan support, and was started first by a Republican president.

Again, this is not about Republican VS Democrat.  Amnesty does not have PUBLIC support, and that's what matters.

You've got certain wide-eyed elements that see the president as a radical, where most rightly see him as a cautious, moderate president.

If that were true, people across the nation would not be having this very conversation.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 12:57:30 PM

If that were true, people across the nation would not be having this very conversation.

I suddenly see a lot of caveats in your answers, but I digress ...

If people -- big "if -- are indeed having this conversation, they're not terribly disturbed by it. Obama's approval ratings have never drifted below an average of 45%, despite being saddled with a terrible economy and a whole lot of people screaming "radical!"

In comparison, Reagan's and Clinton's approval ratings dropped into the high 30s. And Bush II ... his ratings dropped into the 20s.

I think you're way overestimating the current president's vulnerability ... and overestimating how many people dislike him. Again, you're showing a lot of conjecture.

And now a new accomplishment for this administration; passage of financial reform.

Probably won't be as protective as what was repealed in 1999, but hey, it's a start.

Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 19, 2010, 01:11:18 PM
I suddenly see a lot of caveats in your answers, but I digress ...

If people -- big "if -- are indeed having this conversation, they're not terribly disturbed by it. Obama's approval ratings have never drifted below an average of 45%, despite being saddled with a terrible economy and a whole lot of people screaming "radical!"

In comparison, Reagan's and Clinton's approval ratings dropped into the high 30s. And Bush II ... his ratings dropped into the 20s.

I think you're way overestimating the current president's vulnerability ... and overestimating how many people dislike him. Again, you're showing a lot of conjecture.

Perhaps you are right.  I do see through the veil I impose upon myself.  But then again if it's just me, then why are so many, even those within the administration like Robert (supposed to be the cheerleader) Gibbs acknowledging doom. 

Then there are the articles, like the one in TIME today http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html were it seems the administration, and congress are painted in panic mode. 

I understand that with my own bias, I may simply be reading things into such reports, but it seems there is an inkling of disenchantment.  ;)

This is specifically what the Tea Party claims to stand for from their web site. I don't read anything but common sense in any of this.  I read nothing about racism, Second Amendment solutions, overthrowing the government, etc.:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

"Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual."

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 02:56:36 PM
This is specifically what the Tea Party claims to stand for from their web site. I don't read anything but common sense in any of this.  I read nothing about racism, Second Amendment solutions, overthrowing the government, etc.:

The unintended product of the racism claims will be a straw-man set up to benefit the Tea Party.  Liberals should know by now that it's dangerous to play the race card this early.  There are several black tea party members and candidates that pose quite a challenge to this supposition.

There are fringe members of every party.  Walk around any Democratic or Republican convention and you can literally get hundreds of pictures of some very sick and disturbing elements. 

Is that philosophy present in mission of the organizations?  No.

Can such claims take a toll on the organizations?  Yes. . .but only when brought to light at the right time.  To play the race card effectively you have to play it when there is little time for rebuke (like just before a major election).

The fact that liberals are already starting to throw the kitchen sink, is an indicator of panic, and a lack in control of their message.  Had they saved this card until late October, they could have thrown a real spanner into the works.  Unfortunately, you can only cry wolf once before you diminish the impact of the stratagem.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 02:56:36 PM
This is specifically what the Tea Party claims to stand for from their web site. I don't read anything but common sense in any of this.  I read nothing about racism, Second Amendment solutions, overthrowing the government, etc.:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

"Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual."

I don't have a problem with what is stated there. It's a basic Libertarian position document. It is the kind of positive statement that I think the Tea Party could be about and could have long term impact adhering to. I disagree with a good amount of the positions stated, but I find nothing offensive or hateful or intentionally hurtful in any of this statement. I find the Libertarian position to be generally thoughtful, logical, honest, and well meaning.

I myself have great sympathy for most of these positions and think a lot can be learned from them and that the Libertarian view is a positive one in any discussion and debate on almost any issue and in government. I just personally find Libertarian positions to be too simplistic, unlearning and inflexible very often for a lot of real world issues, too mechanical and predictable if you will and human behavior is not mechanical or predictable. It too often assumes that people will work in their own self interest and act in an educated and informed way, and that's just simply not the case. And also creates too many losers in the economic system.

Libertarianism and Communism (real Communism, not the crushing police state oligarchy that Stalin created) are polar opposites and failures in much the same way, they both expect that both the weak  and the powerful will act in some idealized way to further the interests of all. It's just not realistic.

The kind of socially conservative Libertarianism that is attempted by Rand Paul isn't really Libertarianism at all, Libertarians are very socially liberal. But, his truly Libertarian position regarding the Civil Rights act is educational. In a perfect world a business could hire or serve anyone they choose. If they don't choose to serve blacks they are hurt economically and other businesses thrive. That is Paul's position, it is a correct position for a Libertarian and isn't meant to be racist, it isn't in fact racist. But racism does exist and is why the Libertarian position is not tenable.
And, despite this position paper, in the end what the Tea Party movement has become isn't a Libertarian movement at all. It's very much become an overheated God, Gays, Guns and Get the immigrants out movement with a nod to Libertarian economic policy joined on the hatred of government and Obama. A libertarian should not believe in border controls at all and does not care about gays or God. Each individual chooses their own path and no one should stand in their way and banks should be able to act in any way they see fit and get as big as they see fit. I do think that the best outcome for the Tea Party movement is to shuns the racists and hyperbolic political fringe rhetoric and become a real Libertarian movement.

Quote from: swake on July 19, 2010, 03:47:37 PM

And, despite this position paper, in the end what the Tea Party movement has become isn't a Libertarian movement at all. It's very much become an overheated God, Gays, Guns and Get the immigrants out movement with a nod to Libertarian economic policy joined on the hatred of government and Obama.

Great analysis until you got to this point.  You are correct, the Tea Party has many similarities, and as many differences.  I understand why some can see Libertarian philosophy is inflexible or mechanical.  You must understand that Libertarian philosophy is a basis, a foundation to build on with lots of room for subtlety.

Our constitution is almost entirely Libertarian in philosophy, and we have built on it.  You will find that libertarians are strong constitutionalists.  A stark contrast from the more liberal belief systems that regard the constitution as an old, outdated document written by men who could never foresee the world as it is today.

Back to the quote above.  You made a good analysis and then you wound up with this statement

Quote"It's very much become an overheated God, Gays, Guns and Get the immigrants out movement with a nod to Libertarian economic policy joined on the hatred of government and Obama."

I don't think this is anywhere in the statements or the mission of the movement.  These definitions have been offered by others.

Republicans don't want anyone having more fun than they do, and the Democrats don't want anyone making more money than they do. Libertarians want you to make money and have fun. -Marrou

Quote from: swake on July 19, 2010, 03:47:37 PM
A libertarian should not believe in border controls at all and does not care about gays or God. Each individual chooses their own path and no one should stand in their way and banks should be able to act in any way they see fit and get as big as they see fit.

Are we talking about Libertarianism or Unitarianism?  ;)

Rand Paul isn't any more a sole defining example of Libertarianism than President Obama is of Liberalism.  The establishment is obviously rattled and scared of this movement.  I'd thought of it as being ultra right leaning, but I'm hearing more and more people who are moderate independents who are starting to align with the Tea Party movement. 

I think of it as being more of a symbolic movement to remind politicians whose government this really is.  Pretty much the same way I've approached things like "Second Amendment solutions" it's symbolic rhetoric.  But that's simply my take.  I've not been to a rally and I rarely, if ever watch political TV anymore and only catch talk radio when I'm in the truck, so I may be further off in my estimation of what the Tea Party is all about. 

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 04:22:51 PM
Are we talking about Libertarianism or Unitarianism?  ;)

Rand Paul isn't any more a sole defining example of Libertarianism than President Obama is of Liberalism.  The establishment is obviously rattled and scared of this movement.  I'd thought of it as being ultra right leaning, but I'm hearing more and more people who are moderate independents who are starting to align with the Tea Party movement.  

I think of it as being more of a symbolic movement to remind politicians whose government this really is.  Pretty much the same way I've approached things like "Second Amendment solutions" it's symbolic rhetoric.  But that's simply my take.  I've not been to a rally and I rarely, if ever watch political TV anymore and only catch talk radio when I'm in the truck, so I may be further off in my estimation of what the Tea Party is all about.  

As with any movement, there are a bunch of radicals, but there are also "normal" people. Unfortunately, the radicals are the ones who get all the attention from the media, thus making it difficult to have reasonable discourse in this country even among those of us who don't feel the need to paint the other side as equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini.

It's pretty depressing, really.

I think all of us (or at least most of us) can agree that the radicalization of political discourse serves nobody but the people who get the book deals.

Part of the Tea Party's problem is that they have let these radicals define the whole group. As others here, I have strong libertarian sympathies. In a perfect world, where people always acted rationally in their own best interest, I'd probably be more strongly aligned with that point of view.

Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2010, 05:02:53 PM
As with any movement, there are a bunch of radicals, but there are also "normal" people. Unfortunately, the radicals are the ones who get all the attention from the media, thus making it difficult to have reasonable discourse in this country even among those of us who don't feel the need to paint the other side as equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini.

It's pretty depressing, really.

I think all of us (or at least most of us) can agree that the radicalization of political discourse serves nobody but the people who get the book deals.

Part of the Tea Party's problem is that they have let these radicals define the whole group. As others here, I have strong libertarian sympathies. In a perfect world, where people always acted rationally in their own best interest, I'd probably be more strongly aligned with that point of view.

Actually, it's a small group of radicals which seem to define most movements.  Out of 1.5 bln (depending on whose estimate you use) Muslims, how many are raving lunatic mad?  What's that done for the overall image of Islam world-wide as a peace-loving religion?

At least from what I'm able to tell, the number of asshats showing up with Obama/Hitler signs at rallys are small and who is to say those aren't plants from the opposition?  I can promise you it's happened in the past with conservatives infiltrating liberal rallies and vice-versa.

It's the most radical of elements which gets the attention.  Peaceful, boring protests isn't very sexy in the news cycle.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2010, 05:50:17 PM
Actually, it's a small group of radicals which seem to define most movements.  Out of 1.5 bln (depending on whose estimate you use) Muslims, how many are raving lunatic mad?  What's that done for the overall image of Islam world-wide as a peace-loving religion?

At least from what I'm able to tell, the number of asshats showing up with Obama/Hitler signs at rallys are small and who is to say those aren't plants from the opposition?  I can promise you it's happened in the past with conservatives infiltrating liberal rallies and vice-versa.

It's the most radical of elements which gets the attention.  Peaceful, boring protests isn't very sexy in the news cycle.

What, you think Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle are plants?  :o (I keed, I keed)

Man.  Those whackos sure steal the limelight.



That's the Tea Party Senate candidate up in Alaska, trying to unseat Murkowski.  And his, um, minions.

Ah, yet more violent symbolism in politics. If there was a strong tide in favor of stricter gun control, I might understand the point of carrying rifles while campaigning.

Maybe there are a lot of bear attacks in that area?

Or perhaps they wanted to forestall any heckling..

Quote from: we vs us on July 19, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Man.  Those whackos sure steal the limelight.

That's the Tea Party Senate candidate up in Alaska, trying to unseat Murkowski.  And his, um, minions.

I don't understand.  They are doing nothing illegal.  Are they "wacko" because they have guns, or because he's in a Hummer?  ;)

Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2010, 06:49:32 PM
Maybe there are a lot of bear attacks in that area?

Reminds me of a window sticker a Navy friend had. It was a picture of a Bear with a rifle.  The caption was: "I support the right to arm bears."

Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2010, 06:49:32 PM
Ah, yet more violent symbolism in politics. If there was a strong tide in favor of stricter gun control, I might understand the point of carrying rifles while campaigning.

Maybe there are a lot of bear attacks in that area?

Or perhaps they wanted to forestall any heckling..

Where's the violence in that?  What's the context, other than it fits the paradigm people are trying to build of "armed insurrectionists".  Are these two in the reserves?  Are they LEO's? Is Alaska open-carry? Are those dummy guns?  Are they even loaded?  I didn't see them point a weapon at anyone else and they were being handled in a responsible manner.  Knowing the context helps instead of rushing to judgement.  As well, Alaska is a wilderness state, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find an Alaskan who does not own a firearm. 

Personally, I wouldn't walk around with my AR-15 at a parade or campaign rally, but they are quite free to do that under the Second Amendment.  I've made no secret of it that I'm a Second Amendment advocate and I'm a gun owner.  Even though it's their right to do so, I personally do believe that civilians openly carrying firearms is a bad idea for one simple reason: when gun-control freaks decide to interpret it as a "violent protest" it gives them fodder for why gun control is a good idea.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 07:28:15 AM
I don't understand.  They are doing nothing illegal.  Are they "wacko" because they have guns, or because he's in a Hummer?  ;)

They're wacko because they apparently don't grasp the message they are sending when attending a political rally with guns. Should anybody stop them? No. Does that mean I shouldn't point and laugh at their stupidity? Also no.

It's stupid, Conan, because it sends the message that they're willing to use violence if they don't get their way. It also shows a grave ignorance of past events which they are emulating.

Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 08:53:12 AM
They're wacko because they apparently don't grasp the message they are sending when attending a political rally with guns. Should anybody stop them? No. Does that mean I shouldn't point and laugh at their stupidity? Also no.

It's stupid, Conan, because it sends the message that they're willing to use violence if they don't get their way. It also shows a grave ignorance of past events which they are emulating.

Good.  So we agree that we can be angry or disappointed in them, but that they are not doing anything wrong according to our laws. 

They are pushing the envelope on purpose.  They are combining the spirit of the first and second amendments.  It's an "in your face" expression designed to upset liberals and cause them to express their discomfort. 

It's working.

You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies? 

Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 09:19:38 AM
You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies? 

In his world, threatening armed violence against people he disagrees with for fun over politics is not only acceptable, it's funny. It's more than a little sick. 

Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 09:19:38 AM
You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies?  

You should preface your comments with "My opinion is..." because that's simply your take on the matter.

Bringing a gun into a public square does not automatically mean you expect harm or expect to harm others.  In my opinion, It can also be a symbolic display of Constitutionalism, though it's not a choice I'd personally make.

Of course when you see grown men and women walking with weapons into Expo Square, it might simply mean they are there to sell them at a gun show.  ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 09:51:20 AM
You should preface your comments with "My opinion is..." because that's simply your take on the matter.

Bringing a gun into a public square does not automatically mean you expect harm or expect to harm others.  In my opinion, It can also be a symbolic display of Constitutionalism, though it's not a choice I'd personally make.

Really?  You walk into Woodland Hills Mall and three 18 1/2 year-olds in slouchy drawers with AR-15's strapped to their back are lounging around by the Mrs. Fields, waiting for something fun to happen.  Do you really think you'd react with "Aha!  The youth of today exercising their God-given Second-Amendment rights!"

While it's my opinion, I also think it's common sense.  An AR-15 (or a glock strapped to your thigh) just isn't the equivalent of wearing a watch, or your wedding ring, or carrying a wallet, or wearing a backpack.  It simply isn't that nonchalant.  Putting it on is an act of either offense or defense, simply because you know that in public the only other people packing are packing for the same reasons. 

Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 09:19:38 AM
You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies? 

They carry flags too.  That does not mean they are going to war.  The expression is "We still have our rights."  That is all. . .and the outrage around that expression is exactly what they want to illicit.  That outrage exposes those who would if they could take those rights away.  

Your perception is not the same as mine, or anyone else's for that matter.  And to apply your perception and call it "public perception" is. . .well you think about it.

We all have different opinions.  Your's is no more important than mine.

I think Gaspar hit it on the head the best.

"Flag" made me think of a discussion we had on here a few years back about the Confederate flag.

I find it to be a horrible black eye on American history and find it to be a racist symbol.  That's my take.

Another poster, surprisingly one of the more liberal ones, said it was no such thing, it was a symbol of defiance.

Point is, there are symbols throughout society and they can all mean different things to each of us.  I don't pretend to think my symbol of someone carrying a firearm at a political rally is going to be the same as a liberal's view nor even the same as the person carrying it.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 12:55:00 PM
I don't pretend to think my symbol of someone carrying a firearm at a political rally is going to be the same as a liberal's view nor even the same as the person carrying it.

And that's why I in no way support outlawing such practices. Well, I might support a ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in a political rally, but the arms themselves? Meh, whatever.

Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 01:00:53 PM
And that's why I in no way support outlawing such practices. Well, I might support a ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in a political rally, but the arms themselves? Meh, whatever.

How would you feel about concealed carry at a rally then?

Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 01:02:09 PM
How would you feel about concealed carry at a rally then?

Why would I care about that any more than I care about people carrying concealed anywhere else? I think the symbolism they are exhibiting is a problem, not the guns.

Similarly to how we expect public officials to not only avoid impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, we should expect political movements to not only avoid violence but to also be mindful of using props that could be construed as, if not support, at least ambivalence towards political violence.

This has been a constructive thread.  No one has changed their positions, yet we have a better understanding of the reason behind each mindset.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 01:45:47 PM
This has been a constructive thread.  No one has changed their positions, yet we have a better understanding of the reason behind each mindset.

Shut up fartknocker

;)