Tea Party Will go Nowhere Unless...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
np, the point i was making was that the only fact he presented was that white males were 100% of the people who signed both the declaration of independence and the constitution. this is ONLY a product of the fact that blacks were enslaved during that time. black men have fought and died beside our ancestors in every war we’ve ever fought, free or not.[/quote]
The DoI was drafted in the North where few if any Blacks were enslaved. Your point is ludicrous and factually inaccurate.

Furthermore, they have may fought and died in modern-day wars, but not every war.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
you did not, as your most recent post would have me believe, make the point that paleoconservatism and libertarianism wouldn’t exist were it not for white males. you posted a pat buchanan link that was full of misinformation along with some anti-semetic quote. buchanan said, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that white males were 100% of the people at normandy, vicksburg, gettysburg, etc. they also fought alongside confederates. [/quote]

He didn’t say unequivocally that 100% were white. His exact words were, “Probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy [were white].”

I can’t find a record of black soldiers serving at Gettysburg or Vicksburg in significant numbers. Wikipedia has the following:

"Several African Americans are known to have participated in some capacity on the Southern side in the Battle of Gettysburg. After the battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, “reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers.”

That’s 7 men out of over 150,000 total. Pat was right. You have nothing to stand on.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
frankly, you’re treating it as a foregone conclusion that we all appreciate paleoconservatism and libertarianism. a lot of people see paleoconservatism as klan ideology gone mainstream. [/quote]

Not on this site, they don’t. You’ve stumbled upon a libertarian/paleo-conservative stronghold.

62

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Major shift according to Rasmussen as well:

Like I said, they are succeeding in portraying themselves as exactly what the liberal media has been calling them. Foolish foolish strategic blundering. If they had a cohesive strategy. Some potential and I’m sure some fine levelheaded people are involved, but the visible perceived leadership is killing them. Even Palin spent most of her speech beating up on Obama. Obama is a genuinely horrible president, but making him the centerpiece of the movement, or even making it appear that way both misses the point and is a catastrophic error in judgment.[/quote]

Like I said this is about about finding what message works. The tea party will return to its free market, anti establishment message really soon. Once they do that they will rise again in the polls.

You really think they won’t hesitate to throw some of these people to the curb if they start hurting there message?[/quote]
Can you post any videos of “Tea Party” types who manage to come across as remotely intelligent and cognizant of free market principles? Here is one video of them:

All I see are fat, dumb-looking people walking around with T-shirts, shorts and backpacks. Typical ugly Americans.

63

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Major shift according to Rasmussen as well:

Like I said, they are succeeding in portraying themselves as exactly what the liberal media has been calling them. Foolish foolish strategic blundering. If they had a cohesive strategy. Some potential and I’m sure some fine levelheaded people are involved, but the visible perceived leadership is killing them. Even Palin spent most of her speech beating up on Obama. Obama is a genuinely horrible president, but making him the centerpiece of the movement, or even making it appear that way both misses the point and is a catastrophic error in judgment.[/quote]

Like I said this is about about finding what message works. The tea party will return to its free market, anti establishment message really soon. Once they do that they will rise again in the polls.

You really think they won’t hesitate to throw some of these people to the curb if they start hurting there message?[/quote]
Can you post any videos of “Tea Party” types who manage to come across as remotely intelligent and cognizant of free market principles? Here is one video of them:

All I see are fat, dumb-looking people walking around with T-shirts, shorts and backpacks. Typical ugly Americans.[/quote]

Well maybe you should actually go to an event. I am a member of the Tea Party. I have proven that I know a thing or two about free market principles. These people do not know the details but they know that when America uses free market it grows, when it uses socialism/fascism/communism things go bad. They saw the fall of the USSR and saw what the people lived through.

These people are busy with their lives, raising a family running a business. So if they need someone to go over the details I would be more then happy to be that person.

64

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Major shift according to Rasmussen as well:

Like I said, they are succeeding in portraying themselves as exactly what the liberal media has been calling them. Foolish foolish strategic blundering. If they had a cohesive strategy. Some potential and I’m sure some fine levelheaded people are involved, but the visible perceived leadership is killing them. Even Palin spent most of her speech beating up on Obama. Obama is a genuinely horrible president, but making him the centerpiece of the movement, or even making it appear that way both misses the point and is a catastrophic error in judgment.[/quote]

Like I said this is about about finding what message works. The tea party will return to its free market, anti establishment message really soon. Once they do that they will rise again in the polls.

You really think they won’t hesitate to throw some of these people to the curb if they start hurting there message?[/quote]

I’m not against the Tea Party movement. Quite the contrary. I joined their site and may look into becoming active. What I’m saying is the visible so called leadership has the political savvy (the good essential kind) of a damp sponge. It is possible to foment a hard hitting 100% honest and accurate message without blowing your own brains out. They don’t seem to grasp that and make no mistake, first impressions are nigh impossible to overcome.

65

Tiribulus:

I’m afraid that the Constitutional/Less Government/Free Market message that some would like to see and hear will be drowned out by the birthers/“The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.

We are also a VERY diverse Nation. The most diverse in History. And large segments of the Population chooses to not affiliate themselves with the “Tea Party”.

“The Movement” is also ripe to be taken over by the Religious Right. (Make of that what you will).

I’m afraid that the hoped for message will eventually be drowned out by a message that is much louder and much more divisive.

Mufasa

66

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus:

I’m afraid that the Constitutional/Less Government/Free Market message that some would like to see and hear will be drowned out by the birthers/“The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.

We are also a VERY diverse Nation. The most diverse in History. And large segments of the Population chooses to not affiliate themselves with the “Tea Party”.

“The Movement” is also ripe to be taken over by the Religious Right. (Make of that what you will).

I’m afraid that the hoped for message will eventually be drowned out by a message that is much louder and much more divisive.

Mufasa[/quote]

This.

I’m a generally Free Market, Small Government guy but I am 100% sure that most of the Tea Party members. “The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.

I fear the right’s nutjobs just as much as I do the left’s.

67

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Tiribulus:

I’m afraid that the Constitutional/Less Government/Free Market message that some would like to see and hear will be drowned out by the birthers/“The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.

Mufasa[/quote]

ummmm… isn’t Trib EXACTLY one of these types you’re talking about?

68

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Tiribulus:

I’m afraid that the Constitutional/Less Government/Free Market message that some would like to see and hear will be drowned out by the birthers/“The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.

Mufasa[/quote]

ummmm… isn’t Trib EXACTLY one of these types you’re talking about?
[/quote]

I have never once referred to Obama as the anit-christ, a nazi or even a facist. I have said the he is a committed hippified ultra leftist steeped in Marxist ideology and as such an enemy of the United States as founded. I will tell you again. I stand fully by every bit of that and mercifully many Americans who’s heads have not yet made it all the way up their own rectum are, although a little late, beginning to see the truth of this.

I am not referring to tea party people, most of whom probably performed the minor exercise of sniffing this guy out during the campaign. I’m referring to usually only nominally aware independents who are saying “whatever the hell this is it ain’t what my country is about”.

69

I can only speak for myself:

  1. I DON’T think that Tiribulus is one of the one’s I’m speaking of.

  2. My point was that his voice, and those like his, will be drowned out by the more vocal and extreme.

You can almost be assured that the “Tea Party” movement will find it almost impossible to keep its message on merely big government, fiscal responsibility and the Constitution.

Other agenda’s are already starting to rear their ugly head.

Mufasa

70

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus:

I’m afraid that the Constitutional/Less Government/Free Market message that some would like to see and hear will be drowned out by the birthers/“The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.

We are also a VERY diverse Nation. The most diverse in History. And large segments of the Population chooses to not affiliate themselves with the “Tea Party”.

“The Movement” is also ripe to be taken over by the Religious Right. (Make of that what you will).

I’m afraid that the hoped for message will eventually be drowned out by a message that is much louder and much more divisive.

Mufasa[/quote]

We were NOT founded to be a diverse nation the way diversity is defined today. We had a unique culture that was very overtly defined by social and moral norms of what is today called “the religious right”. Even the the least formally religious of the revolutionary era founders would today be viewed as insane right wing extremists.

American diversity consisted in the idea that anybody from anywhere was welcome if they participated in that already extant culture. Modern diversity is an invention of latter 20th century liberalism and has been one of several quite successful tools in their hands for accomplishing the very division we are now laboring under.

This isn’t the country Washington, Adams, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson et al gave birth to and they would weep in horror at what we’ve done with what they left us. “Diversity” as defined today is an inherently ungovernable catastrophe.

71

…American diversity consisted in the idea that anybody from anywhere was welcome if they participated in that already extant culture…

Are we talking about the same 1700’s America?

You are going to have to explain this to me a little more Tiribulus…

Women?

Blacks?

Non-land owners?

Even the non-English/Non Prostestant whites had struggles.

(I apologize if I’m missing your point).

Mufasa

72

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< You can almost be assured that the “Tea Party” movement will find it almost impossible to keep its message on merely big government, fiscal responsibility and the Constitution.

Other agenda’s are already starting to rear their ugly head.

Mufasa[/quote]

This is what they need to do (at least for now) and yes they have. Obama is NOT the problem. Obama is a symptom.

73

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…American diversity consisted in the idea that anybody from anywhere was welcome if they participated in that already extant culture…

Are we talking about the same 1700’s America?

You are going to have to explain this to me a little more Tiribulus…

Women?

Blacks?

Non-land owners?

Even the non-English/Non Prostestant whites had struggles.

(I apologize if I’m missing your point).

Mufasa[/quote]

I don’t expect that everybody should have read everything I’ve said in this forum, but I have addressed these many times. Suffice it to say that, unlike Glen Beck, I do not view either the founders or our founding as “divinely inspired”. The trajectory these men set us on was, despite some of their own hypocritical shortcomings, the most sound of any in history. Inconsistently applied though they were the defining principles they set forth were capable of producing the mightiest most prosperous and envied nation in the blink of an historic eye.

BTW, I do not view the state of modern American women or the country that they now inhabit as result of all their “progress” as an improvement. Actually, on some levels blacks aren’t much better off either. The chains are just different and much harder to break. I’ve gone into all this already as well.

74

…BTW, I do not view the state of modern American women or the country that they now inhabit as result of all their “progress” as an improvement. Actually, on some levels blacks aren’t much better off either…

We will have to agree to disagree.

The Founder’s were exceptional men. Despite that, I simply don’t hold such an exalted view of 1700’s America…

Mufasa

75

I wonder what blacks and women have to say about it. I wonder if they’d like to go back to 1700s America…

76

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I can only speak for myself:

  1. I DON’T think that Tiribulus is one of the one’s I’m speaking of.

  2. My point was that his voice, and those like his, will be drowned out by the more vocal and extreme.

You can almost be assured that the “Tea Party” movement will find it almost impossible to keep its message on merely big government, fiscal responsibility and the Constitution.

Other agenda’s are already starting to rear their ugly head.

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s an interesting distinction that you are making. I suppose, to an extent, one should differentiate between those who, for example, think Obama is an enemy of america vs those who think he is the anti-christ.

I also suppose that one should differentiate between those who support mass deportations based upon religion vs “the birthers.”

So I suppose one should, to a certain extent, separate trib from the group you are talking about. Do I properly understand the distinction you are making?

For my part, however, whether someone wants to kick Muslims out of “my america” or thinks Obama was born in Kenya, there is not a great difference between them.

77

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
They get some wise leadership and at least some semblance of unified direction.

So far at the convention I’ve seen, the alleged honcho who’s name escapes me at the moment say “people who couldn’t even spell the word vote have elected an avowed communist” and Joe Farah put the birth certificate thing front and center.

I have no problem with calling Obama a communist, but the clear implication is that illiterate blacks are responsible for his election. This is exactly the way to phrase something like this if your intention is to hand the media a Desert Eagle 50 and paint an “I’m a racist” bullseye on your temple. I understand and even probably agree with the thrust of what this guy was trying to say, but there are one thousand wiser and more effective ways to state it.

Regardless of what anybody thinks of the birther issue, it is unbelievable political stupidity to make it a platform in your agenda. Obama has handed clear thinking constitutional constructionists a very impressive arsenal of weaponry to point at him. What, WHAT, is wrong with these people pulling the citizenship question out of the back of some drawer when there is a room full of artillery staring them in the face?

Very disappointing and breathtakingly sophomoric. I am not in any way saying that they should play softball, but how about SMART hardball??[/quote]

I agree. The loony crap costs credibility and hurts the legitimate, serious criticisms.

Further, the TEA Party movement is in danger of being co-opted. The following is from an http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/tea-party-movement-produces-new-political-organization/

"Mark Skoda, chairman of The Memphis TEA Party, made the announcement at a news conference in the middle of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. . . .The announcement came with an official platform that could help define what the multi-faceted tea party movement stands for and expects from the candidates it supports. The group’s leaders plan to support candidates who stand for a set of “First Principles.”

Those principles are: fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less government, states’ rights and national security. Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform. If a particular candidate meets the proposed criteria he or she would be eligible for fund-raising and grassroots support.

The “fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less government, states’ rights and national security” part looks fine, but note the “Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform” part.

Should the TEA Party become co-opted by the RNC? Would Ron Paul (who I voted for) support this?

EDITED TO ADD IN:

Just saw this from http://www.teaparty.org/

â??The Tea Party is an inspired movement of like minded Patriots, not the actions of one person, but countless Patriots acting as one. I am deeply concerned the Tea Party is becoming nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.â??

I am sending an alarm to the Tea Party membership! Be alert to turncoats and deceivers being herded into the Tea Party by usurpers from the weakened Republican Party for the sole purpose of capturing our populist movement. Our political ideals were once theirs and our immense growth has created a lusting for their good old days!

Sarah Palinâ??s well delivered speech and her attractive demeanor is little more than a veneer for her less attractive political philosophy. She seems more like a duck out of water among true Conservative Constitutionalists. Palin demonstrates her NeoCon flippant viewpoint and her naïveté as she seems envious of the swelled numbers of Patriots pledging their allegiance, to of all things, AMERICA and not to a kool-aid ridden political dinosaur."

There’s a lot more, not included for brevity, see the site if interested.

78

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I can only speak for myself:

  1. I DON’T think that Tiribulus is one of the one’s I’m speaking of.

  2. My point was that his voice, and those like his, will be drowned out by the more vocal and extreme.

You can almost be assured that the “Tea Party” movement will find it almost impossible to keep its message on merely big government, fiscal responsibility and the Constitution.

Other agenda’s are already starting to rear their ugly head.

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s an interesting distinction that you are making. I suppose, to an extent, one should differentiate between those who, for example, think Obama is an enemy of america vs those who think he is the anti-christ.

I also suppose that one should differentiate between those who support mass deportations based upon religion vs “the birthers.”

So I suppose one should, to a certain extent, separate trib from the group you are talking about. Do I properly understand the distinction you are making?

For my part, however, whether someone wants to kick Muslims out of “my america” or thinks Obama was born in Kenya, there is not a great difference between them.

[/quote]
You have everything that’s coming pal.

79

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I can only speak for myself:

  1. I DON’T think that Tiribulus is one of the one’s I’m speaking of.

  2. My point was that his voice, and those like his, will be drowned out by the more vocal and extreme.

You can almost be assured that the “Tea Party” movement will find it almost impossible to keep its message on merely big government, fiscal responsibility and the Constitution.

Other agenda’s are already starting to rear their ugly head.

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s an interesting distinction that you are making. I suppose, to an extent, one should differentiate between those who, for example, think Obama is an enemy of america vs those who think he is the anti-christ.

I also suppose that one should differentiate between those who support mass deportations based upon religion vs “the birthers.”

So I suppose one should, to a certain extent, separate trib from the group you are talking about. Do I properly understand the distinction you are making?

For my part, however, whether someone wants to kick Muslims out of “my america” or thinks Obama was born in Kenya, there is not a great difference between them.

[/quote]
You have everything that’s coming pal.[/quote]

Is this some sort of threat?

80

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
<<< Is this some sort of threat? [/quote]
Are you asking if I’m threatening you? If so then no (wadda goof) and I’ve been giving you too much credit.