The Tea Party...
 

I've made no bones of not being fond of many of the Tea Party and it's candidates. Honestly I don't understand most of their ideas or how they would work. But the main reason I dislike the Tea Party is because of candidates like Glen Urquhart who recently stated-


"Do you know, where does this phrase separation of Church and State come from? Does anybody know? ... Actually, that's exactly, it was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring that the federal government wouldn't trample on their religion. The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. Next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they're Nazis."

Of course that's not true. The truth and the Tea Party seem to be in constant conflict. In Jefferson's letters (to the Danbury Baptists) he stated-

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


I'm tried of this revisionism history. I know all politicians do it but to me this is beyond the common bull shit spread by someone trying to get elected or re-elected.

So, do you support the Tea Party? If so what do you make of statements like this?

like the man said: "there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action..."

that man being johann wolfgan von goethe...

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov

The meeting of pride and ignorance is worthy of scorn and marginalization.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/customp...ic147753_2.gif
unless the morons are in the majority. Then it is, you betcha.

Jesus Christ we've got to get some Quality Control going...

*Facepalm*

This is the central problem with the Tea Party not actually being a party or organization of any formal kind. Any fool can call themselves "Tea Party XYZ," and any number of other fools will follow them based solely on that, no matter what other silliness they come up with. It's getting to be as bad as the damned Unions. The fiscal and economic and social-liberties concerns that animated the Tea Party movement in the first place are starting to get lost under an avalanche of sectarianism and liquifacted stupid.

See I'm not even sure they're a 'party." I mean most of the candidates that claim to be "tea party" members are heavily funded by two lobbyist run think tanks- Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works and of course the billionaire Koch brothers. And naturally anything they do gets free promotion from Fox News. So there's a lot of funding coming in from two or three main sources and free publicity but does that make them a party? I think that just means they're not a grass roots roots movement, as so many claim, but it doesn't make them a "party."

i think the tea party shouldn't be underestimated. i think they're dangerous and that how problematic they are is concealed behind the clowntime surfaces they seem to feel the need to generate and maintain.

but mostly, i think they're depressing. that there is such a thing, that it resonates in all its vacant snippiness...ugh.

In addition to Jefferson's letter in the OP:

Anyone with an Internet connection can find the same answer to this idiot's claim, and they can find it in under 5 minutes.

Of course, this assumes one is capable of critical thinking and has the capacity for doubt. It also assumes that one supports the idea of a separation between church and state.

We live at a time when this kind of legitimate information is literally at your fingertips, and you can confirm any of it with actual books. But, alas, that takes time, energy, and care. It's better to just follow your compulsions. Go, Tea Party!

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

I may be overreacting, but there are certain similarities between today's "T", the political climate and the economic situation to conditions in Europe eighty-five to ninety years ago.

Of course I'm overreacting! (But that's what they probably said then

We also, sadly, live in an age where what ever you want to be true can also easily be verified. Want to believe 9-11 was an inside job? There's a ton of web sites to verify your belief. Want to believe Ann Coulter is really a dude? No problem, just Google it. That too can be verified. Want to believe trickle down economics works? There's a whole TV network telling you how well it works and why it's fair.

"Anger" is not a political platform

Anger is looking more and more like a political platform. In fact being pissed off at the people in charge has lead to a lot of good change historically. My problem with the current level and direction of anger is it doesn't seem to be 100% directed at the responsible parties. It's taken both sides to dig this hole, blaming one is just being blind. My other problem is the anger doesn't have any realistic solutions attached to it. All it seem to has is a bunch of people blaming other people and stating "I'm no longer willing to pay anything more then my fair share." Most of these people were 100% for the wars, paying for them was another thing. Don't want to pay for it? Fucking fiance it! Most people complain about getting what they deserve... I think if they got what they really deserved they'd be really disappointed

The critical error here is assuming the tea party is a political orientation. It is not. It is a religious faith composed of anti-intellectualism, religious extremism, and pure fear.

That is why no argument ever works, and facts are so unnecessary. Challenging an extremist faith with facts doesn't produce thought and change, it reaffirms their beliefs that they are persecuted, beset by enemies on all sides, and having their faith tested by a higher power.

To take examples from two people I know: One person was basically a teabagger in all but name, but he claimed to have various (inaccurate) factual reasons for having his beliefs and never articulated them in terms of morality, and even though I voted differently than him he was still quite happy that I'd voted at all. After much argument and confrontation with facts and evidence he now supports healthcare reform to the point of even considering a public option a good idea and grudgingly considers president obama to be doing an "okay" job.

Another person would rather I not vote than vote different, and flat out refers to any tax rate of even 35% to be "evil" and "immoral", along with most other things it's framed in terms of morality and patriotism. Nothing I say to this person ever does anything but convince them that I'm an enemy to america.

Very well said.

I'm not sure that's a completely honest assessment either. The "Tea Party" folks seem to be made up by combining a lot of different ideologies. I have a couple friends who I know support the Tea Party and neither of them have any real serious religious views. They just believe they're getting screwed tax wise and want that to stop. I think they're wrong. I think they're probably not paying their fair end of things. But that's all debatable. I wouldn't say either are religious nor anti-intellectual.

About the only thing I can say I firmly believe all the Tea Party people have in common is a serious dislike or even hatred for anything Obama does.

I'm surprised that I am defending the tea party, but there are blue dog democrats, environmental dems, gay dems, feminist dems,...

It did start as a anti-tax, anti-government regulation organization, and has recently shifted to take a more moral, pro Christian agenda. But, they still accept people who are for smaller government as long as they vote with them on social issues.

The Republicans used to have a big tent as well, but the tea party has shifted the values to the right, and has left a lot of people with nowhere to go.

No, they go to the party that'll accept them. This term I'll be voting Dem for the first time in my life.

I'm registered Green but I generally find myself voting for Democrats.

I don't view the Tea Party movement as a political party, group, or organization. I don't view it as a group with common ideologies; I view it as a group with common goals (mostly).

It is not a generative platform based on a shared ideology; it is a platform of protest driven by an agreed-upon negation.

Anyone who calls themselves a "Tea Party candidate" isn't doing so to identify with a particular group and their wider interests; they're doing it as a mode of politicking.

This makes sense, as the Tea Party started out as gatherings, rallies, and protests before they gained all of the national political exposure which transformed the entire Tea Party outlook/agenda.

"The meeting of pride and ignorance is worthy of scorn and marginalization."

This juvinile mentalitly about "the other" (hehe) has played out very successfully here at the TFP. I don't mean to burst your bubbles, but it's nothing more than the numbers. I do apologize I periodically can't help myself from periodically interupting.

For me the most comical part of it is the political party that has made non-careers of countless young people getting arrested in political protest and calling it something like "civil disobedience", call a bunch of people that don't have smiles on their faces in protest to you "angry mobs".
Also just as funny is your self described intellectualism. Quoting John locke, jesus christ, Danbary baptist, Thomas jefferson, johanne van sucked my dick last night, and George Santy something....all crazy smart people I suppose. Don't I feel stupid and anti-intellectual. I'll find some smart people to quote that have nothing to do with what I'm saying soon probably.

I also like your language. I find that after the George Bush presidency, the collective use of the word "snippy" in your moments of trying to rise above is particulary amusing.

That "religious extremism" if uttered in the same sentence as "islam" is islamophobic, but here when talking about the tea party...well, duh. Western civilization defend yourselves!!

I"m so pure fear and anti-intellectual. We all are. We're also depressed - its our ideology, we can't help it.

And I rest my case.

matthew, passive-aggressive finger pointing and the false accusations aside, is there anything constructive you want to add?

I support the financial conservatism of the Tea Party. I have a couple cousins who also support it financial conservatism. I don't support any attempt to try to impose religion or support religious bigotry.

This is just one example of stupid and one example of revisionism. I can find examples of both from both the left and the right. I look at this as a badly misguided attempt to generate enthusiasm by members of the public, and as an embarrassment to any party.

Also, as others have stated, anybody can claim to be a Tea Party member, just as anybody can claim to be a Republican, Democrat, Green, Communist, Socialist, or whatever. Crazy and stupid people too.

---------- Post added at 08:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------

So it was ok for George Soros to try to buy the 2004 election?

---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 AM ----------

I think there's much more to be concerned with from the left. I'm old enough to have lived thru the late 60s and remember the riots and terrorist activities that were sponsored by the left with groups like the Weathermen and the SDS behind some of the terrorist acts.

I'm really not that concerned about any attempt to form a state sponsored religion. Even if someone tried to state that Christianity was the state sponsored religion, you would first have to get that past the numerous Christian denominations who can't even agree among themselves who is a Christian. There are different denominations that don't even get along, even to the extent of religious persecution. Besides which, part of the rationale for migration from Europe to the US was to get away from state sponsored religion.

I hope you periodically don't mind if I periodically call you on your interupting.
For me, the most comical part is how overtly astroturf this whole thing really is. what corporations were funding the 2003 protests against the war? NONE. We had no media wing of the Democratic party organizing, funding, and running the protests. Why? Because we were honestly protesting against something we knew to be wrong. The Tea Party isn't protesting against something they know to be wrong, they're protesting against progress because that's what they're told to do. They're fighting for more deregulation, they're fighting to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy, they're fighting against anything that could possibly cause trouble for the richest people on Wall Street or the richest CEOs.
I was quoting Isaac Asimov because he put eloquently a point relevant to the topic at hand. And it stands. Where is the Tea Party on climate science? Or evolution? Or the age of the Earth? Or basic economics? Or history?
Rise above what? George W. Bush was a horrible president. That has nothing to do with bitter partisanship or mindlessly following what Fox News has to say.
I'll be here when you want to step down off the cross.
Nope.

[IMG]http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1236295906.jpg[/IMG]
What other country can you put DEMOCRAT infront of a politican running for office and the brilliant electorate will re-vote them into office.

(drive by for members who like posting pictures)

Big deal if tea party members are for fewer taxes, hell I'm for fewer taxes, want to make it fair? 10% national sales tax on everything except food.

I'm just going to assume our dear friend matt got on here last night drunk.

In answer to your OP tully: No, I don't support the Tea Party. I would say that I find it simply to be very tacky, except that I'm afraid of people being roped in by the mob mentality.

edit: possible subconscious slip

As a Republican all of my life, it astounds me that the top 10% have convinced the majority of Americans to believe such a lie.

Sales taxes are not fair, they are regressive. I know you'll follow up with "rich people buy more and buy bigger stuff so they pay more!" Just realize that poor and middle class can not save as much of their income in the bank, but spend the majority of their income on must-haves. You mention all but food, but there are a LOT of other must-haves to function in America.

Computer, refrigerator, proper clothing, internet connection, electricity, water, etc. etc. etc.

If you spend 80% of your income and are taxed at 8%, you pay a MUCH higher percentage of your income than a 10%er who can EASILY afford to sit on 40% of their income.

Now you'll be tempted to say something about needing to save, work harder, boostraps, and all. The deck is stacked against anybody making less than $120k, these people (i.e. lets face it everyone posting on this thread) don't deserve more trump cards being given to the other guys.

It all seems to be circular, this talk about taxes, whether it be support for tax cuts or criticism of progressive taxation. Those who both support tax cuts and criticize progressive taxation are essentially promoting the idea that the poor should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes while the wealthy should pay less.

I think the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer just fine as it is. If it's not broke, don't fix it, right?

'Have you guessed the riddle yet?' the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
'No, I give it up,' Alice replied: 'what's the answer?'
'I haven't the slightest idea,' said the Hatter.
'Nor I,' said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily. 'I think you might do something better with the time,' she said, 'than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers.'

"Do you know, where does this phrase separation of Church and State come from? Does anybody know...?"

Seaver is living proof fiscal conservatism no longer has a place in the Republican party. Based on what I know, it hasn't been since 1980.

I would have voted for Ike.

Ike taxed the top marginal bracket at around 85% on average, and he's the guy that added "Under God" to the pledge. I've had people openly accuse me of "communist revisionism" for pointing that out.

In God We Trust on the money as well.

But that didn't have anything to do with McCartney did it? I don't know much about him, but I think he would fit in at Fox News quite well.

No. I don't like this system we have where the folks with the most cash usually win. I wish we could figure a way to take the money out of politics. I like to see some real grass roots movements.

i think the tea party is a strange revolt of the serfs. they are revolting against the scary impersonal modern capitalist system and want to replace it with a new feudalism in which they will be exploited by lords whose name they know directly and be able maybe once a year or so to visit the lord's manor and spend the rest of their time pretending they are that person. they'll be able to console themselves about their miserable lot in life by thinking about some imaginary natural order and how great it is that they know their place in that natural order even if that places is at the bottom of a giant chute that delivers shit onto them at least they'll know the name of the person who squeezes off the bon-bons at the opposite end.

sometimes i think the tea party is merely a giant paranoid reaction to the scale of globalized capitalism, from which can follow a sense of being-erased as a person or a sense that the framework within which one had operated is being dissolved. and thanks to the giant passivity generating machine that is american edutainment, these folk can't relativize their own position. so they panic. and then there are very wealthy individuals committed to the politics of being narcissistic assholes who are willing to spend vast sums of money directing this panic this way and that.

either way, it's all counter-intuitive. i would have thought people would revolt against capitalism. but these people want to revolt against what prevents capitalism from descending into barbarism on its way to imploding. they are revolting against the mechanisms that enable the system as it is to operate at all. their solution to a wobbly-bad situation is to make it worse.

sometimes i wonder if the tea party is full of trotskyists.

It wasn't about McCarthy, it was a simple fix to try to prevent further revolutions in Latin America. By doing so, he tried to force a point between the enforced atheism of the Soviets and the open religion of the Americans to the heavily Catholic Latin America.

I disagree. I believe as you do this is a reaction to the massive shifts caused by globalization, but I also believe it's a bit more.

The older generation is finding their children without jobs, their pensions long gone and their 401k's losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and are forced (or have friends that are) to work at Walmart because no other company will hire retirement age workers. They are nostalgically looking back to when they remember times being different (i.e. '50s) and desperately want that back. Unfortunately they have collective amnesia and don't realize that when they were young their parents paid MUCH higher taxes, which paid for all the nice parks/pools/schools/etc that they remember. It was also after WWII when international competition was 0 and very strong tariffs kept manufacturing jobs in country.

This collective anger is being redirected by a few really rich people with really bad ideas... and it's not being pointed out by the media unfortunately.

Maybe they're the disciples of Leon Trotsky and Ayn Rand's secret love child.

I wouldn't be surprised if many Tea Partier's "minds were blown" by Atlas Shrugged and would rather see American society shift in the direction of Objectivist principles. Maybe that's what they're protesting—those very things that are getting in the way of that.

Actually Ayn Rand wouldn't be accepted into the current Republican Party. She was a lesbian atheist after all....

That's the only problem. However, I wouldn't put it past them if they were to cherry-pick.

EDIT: Oh, you mean the actual Ayn Rand.... Well, they probably wouldn't let Lincoln or Roosevelt in either—too progressive....