• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Tea Party Is.....

What is the Tea Party to America?


  • Total voters
    69
What have I done? People don't understand sarcasm.

The Tea Party made effort to attract minorities but it didn't work!

Are you serious? Here's just two tea party favorites. One is running for president and the other was elected to the senate.

Herman Cain Rises As Tea Party Favorite | Neon Tommy
Cain railed against liberals, who, he said, slander conservatives as “racist, redneck tea-baggers.” He paused for effect, then brought the house down: “I had to go look in the mirror to see if I missed something!” Allen West: Tea Party Statist – Tenth Amendment Center
As a black conservative and Republican, Allen West is not your typical Tea Party member. West rode the Tea Party wave all the way to the U.S. House last November from Florida’s 22nd congressional district. He is the first black Republican to represent Florida since Reconstruction.
http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2011/03/allen-west-mimics-harry-reid/[video]http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2011/03/allen-west-mimics-harry-reid/[/video]
 
Evidence please.

Here you go

Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has a nice piece out today spotlighting the growing taxpayer revolt the rest of the MSM won’t cover. He interviewed our registered commenters Liberty Belle Keli Carender, who spearheaded the Seattle anti-pork protest, and HuskerGirl Amanda Grosserode, who organized today’s anti-stimulus demonstration against Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, KS.
I’m happy to report on several new protest events now on the docket.
My friend Michael Patrick Leahy of Top Conservatives on Twitter and his crew are spearheading “simultaneous local tea parties around the country, beginning in Chicago, and including Washington DC, Fayetteville NC, San Diego CA, Omaha Nebraska, and dozens of other locations” for next Friday.
Time: February 27, 2009 from 12pm to 1pm
Michelle Malkin » Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows
 
tea parties started on tax day 2009, well before Obamacare - the group was in opposition to the bailouts and "stimulus" programs that were exploding the deficit under Bush and Obama; you could probably have read some early the-natives-are-restless rumblings in the earlier opposition to immigration reform; but Obamacare was just fuel on the fire.

Your right except that they started a few months earlier than that. Tax day 2009 was just bigger and they got noticed.
 
Who was that guy that first said we should have something like a "boston tea party" to protest?
 
I probably would have been at the Constitution center or the Washington Convention center. Yeah, that probably discounts me from the Tea Party lot immediately-not going to their rallies.

You're just being silly now;)
 
Who was that guy that first said we should have something like a "boston tea party" to protest?

Rick Santellie. The protests were going on already but they weren't called tea party protests until after he went on his rant.
 
They dress up like the Founding Fathers, talk about reducing the size of government and having more individual freedom. That's extreme to many liberals.

This is bull****, and I think you know it's bull****. Dishonest debate like this is just sad. If all you can do is make straw men and try and dishonestly smear the other side, you are part of the problem in this country.
 
Macro consists of Micro, good luck in disproving that.

Macro is not the same as micro. Are you ever going to actually address any points I have made in this thread?
 
This is bull****, and I think you know it's bull****. Dishonest debate like this is just sad. If all you can do is make straw men and try and dishonestly smear the other side, you are part of the problem in this country.

whoa!!!!! She didnt deserve that outburst! Whats gotten into you man!?!?
 
whoa!!!!! She didnt deserve that outburst! Whats gotten into you man!?!?

It's a very normal response to such a ridiculous remark on an adult forum. Or do you agree that sweeping generalizations attacking a group of American who are concerned about the financing of this country is appropriate. How ironic she thinks THEY are extreme!
 
This is bull****, and I think you know it's bull****. Dishonest debate like this is just sad. If all you can do is make straw men and try and dishonestly smear the other side, you are part of the problem in this country.

Then what makes them radical and extreme?
 
I'm sorry, bro. I try to be forthright here, and I would peg your general lean as far right. Maybe we have different definitions, but as far as I have seen you don't disagree with any of the usual far right positions on issues. And I haven't seen you give even a nod to the concerns voiced by the liberals here so that may be where your rep comes from.

Just sayin.



So being against dadt, against government involvment in who gets married, agaimst coporate welfare, for cutting the budget including the military, against the war on drugs. As one who also applauds the works of a democrat corey booker in newark, who has said that he would vote for him if he still lived there. Who would consider him for governer over most others except christie.


These things lead you to believe i am a "far right winger"?

Please do you really want to hitch your wagon to the likes of haymarket?

I have an open challenge to him to prove i am an "extreme right winger".... Thus far he is an abject failure.


So i kick the question to you.


How is the GOod REverend an "extreme right winger"?


I do not deny that many of my positions are right wing but this idiptic mouth foaming that i am some sort og extremist is intellectually lacking and dishknest in nature.

I wont hold my breath.
 
I'm sorry, bro. I try to be forthright here, and I would peg your general lean as far right. Maybe we have different definitions, but as far as I have seen you don't disagree with any of the usual far right positions on issues. And I haven't seen you give even a nod to the concerns voiced by the liberals here so that may be where your rep comes from.

Just sayin.

I guess you weren't hear when Rev voiced his concern about the level of spending under Bush.
 
I would not believe any of your self serving boasts any more than I can respect the utter vile vitriol you spew in thread after thread here.


No problem, when these newly unemployed union worrkers plant the inflatable rat in front of the now efficie t and affordable shop, i'll take a pic for ya. :thumbs:


Do you really think its only me calling you a right winger? You have created an image that you have carefully crafted. You are what you want to be and you know it. We know it. You go out of your way to project a very narrow and specific image of the radical conservative who is in love with tea party principles and hates anything left of that. yes, that qualifies as a right winger.We have been through this before. Why do you think people here feel you are a right winger? Answer that and you may discover some truth about yourself. You could even call it AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. That irony would probably be lost on you.


see my post to what if.... You call me an "extreme right winger" but you cant name how. You ignore my plethora of very non right wing stances and like the union guys that were dismissed for the contract my company secured, you are divorced from reality.

Because you and 4 partisan hacks call me an extremist does not make it so. And i will bet a platnium that you cant adress how an "extreme right winger" would hold the views i posted to what if.

But then again the far left extremist union apologist is not about the truth.
 
Meh, whatever. You could point out just one tea party candidate who was pro choice or pro gay rights and I would be happy to concede the point.

The Tea Party Express, one of the larger national groups, formerly endorsed Democrat Walt Minnick in his run for Congress. Whose Walt Minnick? One of 12 candidates in 2010 that the Susan B. Anthony List had as "pro-abortion" candidates to "target" for defeat in the 2010 election. A man who voted against putting restrictions on federal funds going to abortion. When originally endorsed Minnick accepted the endorsement however 3 months later did reject it, after the idiotic fake letter that was put out by an dumbass from the Tea Party express, as a potential political liability.

Still, despite the candidate rejecting the Tea Parties support, that doesn't change that it was a candidate that was endorsed by the Tea Party that had a pro-choice stance. He also happened to be the only Democrat to get a perfect record from the fiscally conservative "Club for Growth" which would account for why the Tea Party endorsed him.

So, for the second time in this thread, you asked me to provide something for you and I did. Are you still going to claim outright victory, are you going to move the goal posts again, or are you going to respond to my request for finding me a race where the Tea Party endorsed a major party candidate when another major party candidate in the primaries or general election would've been a more fiscally conservative option?
 
Then what makes them radical and extreme?

I'm not sure that Redress has claimed them to be that, but I can wager why some on the far left would see the tea party as "radical" or "extreme".

Many Tea Partiers are willing to feel some short term discomfort for potentially beneficial long term improvements. To many, taking such a stance is a "radical" notion, akin to amputating ones leg due to severe dabilitating pain in it rather than living life full of pills. For many people opening yourself up to hard times, even if its the chance of a much better life in total, is a "radical" or "extreme" thing. Couple that with the fact that many on the far left think that the views of what the Tea Party stands for won't lead to "good" things but to bad and suddenly it seems they're pushing for bad now for bad later.

Many Tea Partiers are extremely upset with government, how it works, and the size its bloated. As with any group, hyperbole builds in at times and calls to severely reduce government comes off as an immediete goal to get rid of a huge hunk rather than something that realistically will take time to do. Our society since the New Deal has been one with varying large degrees of government involvement in peoples lives and the notion of moving significantly away from the norm can be seen as "radical" or "extreme".

They could be rather "extreme" or "radical" themselves and, as is typical, they view the Tea Party as sort of a mirror, focusing on the fringe elements and extrapolating them as the norm because it suits their political agenda. So they see the fringe that is building up compounds to try and refuse the government, citing "right wing terrorism" yet would never look at groups like ELF as the general representation of environmentalism. They see a fringe amount of klan members supporting the movement and cite that its a racist group, while ignoring the elements of MS-13 and La Raza in the open-borders movement.

Ultimately the Tea Party is a solidly right wing fiscal and governmental organization. To my understanding I would not call it "extreme" or "radical" in a literal sense....fiscal and governmental extremism on the right would be the abolishment of almost all taxes and absolutely hardlined limiting of what government can do to the most narrow literalistic reading of the constitution, which is not the case for the majority of tea partiers with one step away from an anarchy being the form of government. Now, comparing the Tea Party's views to modern politics and generally what we've seen from both parties over the past 20 to 30 years...yes, it could be seen as "radical" and "extreme" as neither side on a national stage have showed anywhere near the desire nor gumption to seriously and legitimately work toward significant cuts to spending. So in the sense of being extremely different than the norm, sure. And comparitive to a far left liberal view, it could easily be seen as "extreme" as its significantly different than their views.

But if you ask me if its "extreme" comparitive to a legitimate, honest, moderate (and not a staunch liberal who likes to call themselves a moderate by acting like everyone thinks like them because its common sense and anyone else must be some extreme crazy righty)? No, its staunchly to the right, but its not extreme from a point where you start in the legitimate middle.
 
I'm not sure that Redress has claimed them to be that, but I can wager why some on the far left would see the tea party as "radical" or "extreme".

Many Tea Partiers are willing to feel some short term discomfort for potentially beneficial long term improvements. To many, taking such a stance is a "radical" notion, akin to amputating ones leg due to severe dabilitating pain in it rather than living life full of pills. For many people opening yourself up to hard times, even if its the chance of a much better life in total, is a "radical" or "extreme" thing. Couple that with the fact that many on the far left think that the views of what the Tea Party stands for won't lead to "good" things but to bad and suddenly it seems they're pushing for bad now for bad later.

Many Tea Partiers are extremely upset with government, how it works, and the size its bloated. As with any group, hyperbole builds in at times and calls to severely reduce government comes off as an immediete goal to get rid of a huge hunk rather than something that realistically will take time to do. Our society since the New Deal has been one with varying large degrees of government involvement in peoples lives and the notion of moving significantly away from the norm can be seen as "radical" or "extreme".

They could be rather "extreme" or "radical" themselves and, as is typical, they view the Tea Party as sort of a mirror, focusing on the fringe elements and extrapolating them as the norm because it suits their political agenda. So they see the fringe that is building up compounds to try and refuse the government, citing "right wing terrorism" yet would never look at groups like ELF as the general representation of environmentalism. They see a fringe amount of klan members supporting the movement and cite that its a racist group, while ignoring the elements of MS-13 and La Raza in the open-borders movement.

Ultimately the Tea Party is a solidly right wing fiscal and governmental organization. To my understanding I would not call it "extreme" or "radical" in a literal sense....fiscal and governmental extremism on the right would be the abolishment of almost all taxes and absolutely hardlined limiting of what government can do to the most narrow literalistic reading of the constitution, which is not the case for the majority of tea partiers with one step away from an anarchy being the form of government. Now, comparing the Tea Party's views to modern politics and generally what we've seen from both parties over the past 20 to 30 years...yes, it could be seen as "radical" and "extreme" as neither side on a national stage have showed anywhere near the desire nor gumption to seriously and legitimately work toward significant cuts to spending. So in the sense of being extremely different than the norm, sure. And comparitive to a far left liberal view, it could easily be seen as "extreme" as its significantly different than their views.

But if you ask me if its "extreme" comparitive to a legitimate, honest, moderate (and not a staunch liberal who likes to call themselves a moderate by acting like everyone thinks like them because its common sense and anyone else must be some extreme crazy righty)? No, its staunchly to the right, but its not extreme from a point where you start in the legitimate middle.
I think people are annoyed with the word "extremism" to describe the Tea Party because the democratic caucus instructed it's use in interviews. Just as the word "McCarthyism" is to be used when discussing Donald Trump.
 
You have me confused with someone else ... I said nothing about religion.

Sure...I get that...you just responded to my post which was a rebuttal to the "The Tea PArty is a religous movement" argument. Sometimes everything gets very convoluted when people respond to people responding to people...who...need people...are the luckiest people in the world...and luck be a lady tonight...tonight tonight tonight...whoa...
 
Actually, if only 5% of blacks are Republicans roughly 3-4 should be black Republicans.
So? They still come up short. By comparison, 28 Democrats should be black, yet there are 40.

You accuse Republicans of being a racist party because only 2 Republicans are black, yet it's proportional to the 40 black Democrats. If Republicans are racist by this standard, than Democrats are also racist for not having 61 black Democrats.
Ummm, it is not proportional. Factoring in Republicans hold 54% of the 535 seats in Congress, there should be an average of 3.7 black Republicans. There are two, that's only 54%, or just over half, of the representation of the black population in the U.S.; compared with Democrats, where there should be an average of 28.1 black Democrats. There are 40, that's 142%, or almost 1 and half times the representation of the black population in the U.S.

Who knows what methodology you employed to reach your conclusion that blacks are proportionally equally represented by Republicans and Democrats? But suffice it to say, when blacks are over represented by Democrats and under represented by Republicans, there is no way to view that as being "proportional to the 40 black Democrats."

Racism cannot be proved by demographics but by actions, the Republican party is not racist. There is no platform that says "whites are the superior race" nor do they kick out minorities. Your accusations are based on your desired opinion and not based on fact.
Of course, you believe it was just coincidence that until 3 months ago, there were no black Republicans in Congress at all.
 
I think people are annoyed with the word "extremism" to describe the Tea Party because the democratic caucus instructed it's use in interviews. Just as the word "McCarthyism" is to be used when discussing Donald Trump.

While I don't care much for such strategies, that doesn't automatically mean the word doesn't fit. The group has been clear shown to contratictory, and part nutter. It has a larger birther contingent, and those holding office claiming them do tend to be the more over the top statemen and stateswomen. From the losing witch to the elected idiots, there is a real nutter element in the movement.
 
While I don't care much for such strategies, that doesn't automatically mean the word doesn't fit. The group has been clear shown to contratictory, and part nutter. It has a larger birther contingent, and those holding office claiming them do tend to be the more over the top statemen and stateswomen. From the losing witch to the elected idiots, there is a real nutter element in the movement.

Clearly I wasn't referring to anything other than a reason why some people don't like those words. There are no extremists in other groups so the word can only be used against the Tea Party. It's redundant to say "Tea Party extremist." Just using the word "extremist" indicates exactly what organization you are talking about.
 
Clearly I wasn't referring to anything other than a reason why some people don't like those words. There are no extremists in other groups so the word can only be used against the Tea Party. It's redundant to say "Tea Party extremist." Just using the word "extremist" indicates exactly what organization you are talking about.

Of course you can find extremeist everywhere, but if we look at those who identify themselves as Tea Party candidates, you have to admit they are extreme almost across the board.
 
Of course you can find extremeist everywhere, but if we look at those who identify themselves as Tea Party candidates, you have to admit they are extreme almost across the board.



Of course they are to you and your ilk, being far left wing, anything right of any "D" is an "extremist"....
 
Back
Top Bottom