Tea Party

[Rule]

So, at one point the tea party was being sold as this revolution of sorts.  Ron Paul endorsed it, who seemed genuine and wasn't speaking the typical Republican party line.  Now it all seems like a sham.  It is now fronted by crazy and embarrassingly ignorant republicans like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and Michelle Bachmann.  In Bachmann's 'tea party' response to the State of the Union, she stated upfront that this was not meant to compete with the official republican response.  This is because they are all republicans.  This is not a new independent voice, it's a third republican choice, calculated to invigorate right leaning people who might not otherwise feel excited about politics.

[nslay]

I don't think Republicans like the Tea Party at all. Lisa Murkowski ... need I say more?
How do you LOSE an official election to a write-in candidate!? Do you realize how BADLY that reflects on the Tea Party?

[Rule]

It's true that a lot of Republicans don't like the Tea Party.  But most of them will at least pretend to.  And all the Tea Party candidates are Republican and 'Republican-friendly' it seems, which is too bad.  It would have been more interesting to have had a third independent choice.

[nslay]

Again, they lost to a write-in candidate. That apparently hasn't happened in FIFTY years! That's extremely embarrassing for their cause!

The news often likes to hound Republicans in office to ask about the Tea Party, and most of the time you get an indication from their tone, facial expression, etc... that they DO NOT like the Tea Party.

[Rule]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

[Blaze]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

Almost all Tea Party people may be republican, but not all republicans are Tea Party!

[Rule]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

Almost all Tea Party people may be republican, but not all republicans are Tea Party!

I didn't say they were.  I said the Tea Party is a third republican choice.

[iago]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

Almost all Tea Party people may be republican, but not all republicans are Tea Party!

I didn't say they were.  I said the Tea Party is a third republican choice.

Dividing votes for a party you don't like is always a good thing. Assuming they're running against each other, of course.

[MyndFyre]

The Tea Party represents what I believe is a coming divide in the Republican party, similarly to the Whigs who fought against the federalists during the early part of the US.

The problem that we've seen, particularly with the George HW Bush and George W Bush traditions of the Republican party, is that a lot of people in the republican party now are statists, whereas the Tea Party generaly represents populism.

Within the Republicans, you still generally see SOME populist tendencies.  So, it comes down to a lot of Tea Party candidates choosing the "lesser of two evils."  Practically, the structure of the US Constitution demands a two party system (the President must win an absolute majority of electoral votes).  It's like a Libertarian party but more moderate.

[while1]

The tea party arose out of genuine discontent with the mainstream Republican party, a party that under Bush had lost its old school fiscal conservative values and instead taken on a neo-conservative "spend and cut taxes" philosophy.  Original the tea party had more of a libertarian following, and despite what you may think, at the grassroots level the tea party is more diverse than you think because all you see is the Republican opportunists trying to play off of the tea party to their political gain.

Being a moderate libertarian, or liberal conservative, I do no affiliate myself with the tea party because it has no defined leadership, if one were to ask "Who's in charge of the tea party", you're likely to get a variety of answers... because as far as I'm aware there is no true leadership to the tea party at a national level officially.

I can't stand the mainstream Republican party, bible thumping fascists, nor can I stand the mainstream Democrats, let government do everything socialists.  I'll settle for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government... but unfortunately neither extreme can compromise.

[Sidoh]

If Sarah Palin is anywhere near it, I won't be.

[Rule]

nor can I stand the mainstream Democrats, let government do everything socialists.  I'll settle for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government... but unfortunately neither extreme can compromise.

I am not a fan of the Democrats either (although I probably support them more than you do), but they are NOT socialists.  Not even remotely close.  They aren't even liberals.  It's really quite interesting you see them as an 'extreme'.  The whole world, outside of the US, sees them as right of centre.  Socialism? No way.

Part of the reason I don't like the Democrats is because they are not strong on any position.  They are too weak.  

[while1]

nor can I stand the mainstream Democrats, let government do everything socialists.  I'll settle for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government... but unfortunately neither extreme can compromise.

I am not a fan of the Democrats either (although I probably support them more than you do), but they are NOT socialists.  Not even remotely close.  They aren't even liberals.  It's really quite interesting you see them as an 'extreme'.  The whole world, outside of the US, sees them as right of centre.  Socialism? No way.

Part of the reason I don't like the Democrats is because they are not strong on any position.  They are too weak. 

Aye, I was resorting to hyperbole to emphasize my distaste for both parties, who might as well be polar opposites considering their inability to find common ground. 

I'd concur to that, Obama has definitely leaned more to fascism than socialism during his term as Presidency, if only for his continuation of many Bush-era policies.  And I'd agree that problem with Democrats is that they're not able to compromise within their own party, the far left and the blue dogs ultimately end up in a stalemate, where as the Republicans have it the opposite, the far right wing silences/intimidates/alienates liberal/moderate Republicans.  In both cases, it's the extremes of both parties that are in my opinion the ills of both parties... the element that gets in the way of achieving common ground.

Despite my ideological views which are more conservative than liberal, I'm willing to compromise on one thing in exchange for another.  I would support increasing the federal taxes to Clinton-era levels if it meant not using this to pay for gross expansion of government; meaning I would demand pay-go be reinstated.  The one thing I am thoroughly pissed at the Party Of No for voting against 6-12 months ago, IIRC.

[Armin]

</3 over-analyzing and unartful simplification of dynamic, ambiguous labels of broken politics.

[MyndFyre]

If Sarah Palin is anywhere near it, I won't be.

I hope that's not really your position.  I'm not a fan, and I make fun of my dad because he thinks she's totally hot. 

That said, two things about the statement are completely illogical:

1.) Associating one person's deficiencies to an entire group based on common beliefs is illogical.
2.) Hating someone with such passion (expressed by hyperbole like "anywhere near it") whom you've never met.  To quote Church from Red vs. Blue, "It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean, you should hate someone because they're an asshole or a pervert or a snob, or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or a know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to; you have to despise people on a personal level, not because they're red or because they're blue, but because you know them and you see them every single day, and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total fucking douchebag."

[deadly7]

I hope that's not really your position.  I'm not a fan, and I make fun of my dad because he thinks she's totally hot. 

That said, two things about the statement are completely illogical:

1.) Associating one person's deficiencies to an entire group based on common beliefs is illogical.
2.) Hating someone with such passion (expressed by hyperbole like "anywhere near it") whom you've never met.  To quote Church from Red vs. Blue, "It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean, you should hate someone because they're an asshole or a pervert or a snob, or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or a know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to; you have to despise people on a personal level, not because they're red or because they're blue, but because you know them and you see them every single day, and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total fucking douchebag."

In some cases, I vehemently disagree with both statements. To invoke Godwin's law for the lulz, most Germans never met Hitler. But obviously some (such as Herr Schindler) hated what he was doing and tried to circumvent his killings.

I know you're a Republican, but I hope you're not delusional enough to think that Sarah Palin's increasingly extremist and idiotic viewpoints are doing this country any benefit. If she does, in deed, represent the views of the Tea Party, logically that means they agree with the majority of her stances on political issues. Therefore, if one disagrees with Palin, one can say that he or she will most definitely hate Tea Partiers.

Whether or not she represents Tea Partiers in actuality depends on whom you ask, though.

[MyndFyre]

In some cases, I vehemently disagree with both statements. To invoke Godwin's law for the lulz, most Germans never met Hitler. But obviously some (such as Herr Schindler) hated what he was doing and tried to circumvent his killings.

I know you're a Republican, but I hope you're not delusional enough to think that Sarah Palin's increasingly extremist and idiotic viewpoints are doing this country any benefit. If she does, in deed, represent the views of the Tea Party, logically that means they agree with the majority of her stances on political issues. Therefore, if one disagrees with Palin, one can say that he or she will most definitely hate Tea Partiers.

Whether or not she represents Tea Partiers in actuality depends on whom you ask, though.

I just don't understand the position "If [person A] is near [cause], then I won't be."

From the opposite opinion, I might then say, "If Bill Maher is supporting the Democrats, then I'll be as far away from them as I can."

Bill Maher recently gave this gem:

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts.  And what’s more, you would’ve hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

I disagree with Bill Maher.  I find his opinions to be quite offensive, and what's more, his approach to discourse to be completely hypocritical.  Yet, since he's calling out "teabaggers" and associating all of these particular traits with the founders (study of science, reading of Plato) as things that Tea Party members would abhor, it implies that he is in favor of those things.  Guess what, though: oh snap, I read through Republic last fall.  As a computer guy, I tend to generally classify myself as "within the engineering-ish/science-ish professions."  How do I ever justify this?!?

I don't buy the patently ridiculous "If [person A] is part of [cause], I'm going to be as far away from it as possible" position.  It's either short-sighted or a rhetorical and psychological trick of trying to polarize people into your side.  George W. Bush was equally guilty of it when he said "You're either with us or against us."  (Yes, that's right.  I've just equated Sidoh's logic to that of GWB's.  GG).

Pick your causes.  If you want to be on the side of statism, if you're happy with a relatively small percentage of elites controlling every facet of your life (those facets depending on their flavor of the day), then great.  If you want to be on the side of populism, with most people's lives being generally free (those things not being free depending on the populists' flavors of the day), then also great.  But at least have the intellectual honesty to understand that those are the ultimate choices.  I honestly don't give a shit about Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Green or Tea or whatever.  I just want to live in a way that nobody's getting into my life because I'm not getting into theirs.  And so I tend to vote Republican because, while I believe that only about 30-45% of Republicans are true populists, maybe only 1-2% of Democrats are.  And like I said before, only the two predominant parties are viable for the time being.  God willing, we'll see a big divide in the Republicans and they can fade into the sunset where a truly populist party can take its place.  So please, don't color my opinion as "MyndFyre is a Republican."  I am registered that way.  But I don't think that any successful future of America can endure the Republican party lasting very much longer.

[Sidoh]

If Sarah Palin is anywhere near it, I won't be.

I hope that's not really your position.  I'm not a fan, and I make fun of my dad because he thinks she's totally hot.  

That said, two things about the statement are completely illogical:

1.) Associating one person's deficiencies to an entire group based on common beliefs is illogical.
2.) Hating someone with such passion (expressed by hyperbole like "anywhere near it") whom you've never met.  To quote Church from Red vs. Blue, "It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean, you should hate someone because they're an asshole or a pervert or a snob, or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or a know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to; you have to despise people on a personal level, not because they're red or because they're blue, but because you know them and you see them every single day, and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total fucking douchebag."

It's not.  I said that in jest.  I'm actually mildly insulted that you took that seriously.

I don't like Sarah Palin.  She's way too stupid to earn my respect.  That said, guilt by association is stupid.  Honestly, I don't really know what the tea party stands for and honestly, I don't care.  Political parties are stupid.  Politics never fails to depress me.  I'd rather prove algebra theorems.  yeah.  it's that bad.

I just don't understand the position "If [person A] is near [cause], then I won't be."

From the opposite opinion, I might then say, "If Bill Maher is supporting the Democrats, then I'll be as far away from them as I can."

And no reasonable person would.  It's a completely fallacious argument.

Bill Maher recently gave this gem:

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts.  And what’s more, you would’ve hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Ahahahahahaha.  That's awesome.  I don't think Bill Maher is an incredibly thoughtful person, but he's a delightful entertainer.

I disagree with Bill Maher.  I find his opinions to be quite offensive, and what's more, his approach to discourse to be completely hypocritical.  Yet, since he's calling out "teabaggers" and associating all of these particular traits with the founders (study of science, reading of Plato) as things that Tea Party members would abhor, it implies that he is in favor of those things.  Guess what, though: oh snap, I read through Republic last fall.  As a computer guy, I tend to generally classify myself as "within the engineering-ish/science-ish professions."  How do I ever justify this?!?

I'm not saying I agree with him on everything he said, but honestly I don't think it's so inaccurate as far as broad generalizations go.  Of course you'd be an exception if you're in support of the Tea Party, but it certainly seems like the limited encounters I've had with teabaggers live up to expectation.

Honestly, though, the average American could probably live up to said expectations.  I don't like stupid.  I think we should make everyone infertile at birth, and you should have to apply to reproduce.  That'd make the world a better place.

I don't buy the patently ridiculous "If [person A] is part of [cause], I'm going to be as far away from it as possible" position.  It's either short-sighted or a rhetorical and psychological trick of trying to polarize people into your side.  George W. Bush was equally guilty of it when he said "You're either with us or against us."  (Yes, that's right.  I've just equated Sidoh's logic to that of GWB's.  GG).

Now I'm actually insulted.  You're clearly rolling with the assumption that I was seriously making that argument.  I'm a more thoughtful person than that -- I assure you.

[Armin]

Political parties are stupid.  Politics never fails to depress me.  I'd rather prove algebra theorems.  yeah.  it's that bad.

agreed 100%. funny considering how much I used to be caught up in this all.

[nslay]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

The Tea Party people are like an infection to the Republicans. Well, this is the vibe I get from Republican officials on the news ...

[MyndFyre]

It's not.  I said that in jest.  I'm actually mildly insulted that you took that seriously.

I'm very relieved.  Really.

[Rule]

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts.  And what’s more, you would’ve hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Well the statement about the founding fathers is accurate, and the statement about the tea baggers seems like a fairly accurate generalisation.  They are not intellectuals -- or at least their movement is not intellectual -- and they seem xenophobic.  

He's not talking about someone like Francis Collins, who is a Christian but who is also a scientist.  I doubt we would find him at a Tea Party rally.

[MyndFyre]

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts.  And what’s more, you would’ve hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Well the statement about the founding fathers is accurate, and the statement about the tea baggers seems like a fairly accurate generalisation.  They are not intellectuals -- or at least their movement is not intellectual -- and they seem xenophobic.  

He's not talking about someone like Francis Collins, who is a Christian but who is also a scientist.  I doubt we would find him at a Tea Party rally.

Really, Rule?  Are you really being intellectually honest in that statement, or are you making an unfair generalization?

Do I seem particularly xenophobic to you?  Do I get grouped into being a "tea bagger?"

[Rule]

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts.  And what’s more, you would’ve hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Well the statement about the founding fathers is accurate, and the statement about the tea baggers seems like a fairly accurate generalisation.  They are not intellectuals -- or at least their movement is not intellectual -- and they seem xenophobic.  

He's not talking about someone like Francis Collins, who is a Christian but who is also a scientist.  I doubt we would find him at a Tea Party rally.

Really, Rule?  Are you really being intellectually honest in that statement, or are you making an unfair generalization?

Do I seem particularly xenophobic to you?  Do I get grouped into being a "tea bagger?"

You don't fit my image of a typical tea bagger.  Do you go to tea party rallies?

[Sidoh]

I like some of what the Tea Party stands for, but I don't think I could associate myself with it.

Speaking of the Tea Party, this video is funny.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw

[while1]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

[Sidoh]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards.

[while1]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards.

Honesty is the best policy!

[nslay]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards.

Honesty is the best policy!

Nothing wrong with being human (like, a real human, not someone's 2000 year old idea of how a human should be). A lot of men find those two attractive.

It's only creepy because the older generations haven't died off yet. As science continues to describe more and more about our psychology and physiology, taboos become increasingly irrelevant. There's nothing to hide when you understand what is really considered normal ... because odds are, you'll be of the 95%+ who are normal.

Not to go off topic too much ... but I remember reading somewhere several years ago, that 90% of Catholic men admitted to masturbating and some 60% of Catholic women having admitted to masturbating on a survey (I think I read this from a Catholic Church study or in a 20 year old Catechism). The point is, the Church's model of a human does not accurately describe a human. Instead, it describes wishful thinking of how a human ought to be.

[Rule]

OT but (), Bristol is sort of attractive, but I never found Sarah attractive at all...

[Sidoh]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards.

Honesty is the best policy!

Unless your goal is to get women.  Then that kind of honestly is usually a pretty poor policy.

It's only creepy because the older generations haven't died off yet. As science continues to describe more and more about our psychology and physiology, taboos become increasingly irrelevant. There's nothing to hide when you understand what is really considered normal ... because odds are, you'll be of the 95%+ who are normal.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not true.  Just because it's normal to have those thoughts doesn't mean it's normal to speak them.  I'm pretty sure the majority of young people I know would find creepy Mike's above dialog a little creepy.

It's okay, Mike.  We still love you.

[nslay]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards.

Honesty is the best policy!

Unless your goal is to get women.  Then that kind of honestly is usually a pretty poor policy.

It's only creepy because the older generations haven't died off yet. As science continues to describe more and more about our psychology and physiology, taboos become increasingly irrelevant. There's nothing to hide when you understand what is really considered normal ... because odds are, you'll be of the 95%+ who are normal.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not true.  Just because it's normal to have those thoughts doesn't mean it's normal to speak them.  I'm pretty sure the majority of young people I know would find creepy Mike's above dialog a little creepy.

It's okay, Mike.  We still love you.

I don't know ... seems normal to me.

Now if he wanted to have an orgy with their dead bodies ... that would be creepy.

[CrAz3D]

I'd even take seconds on Sarah. Hellz yeah!


Anyway, teaparty, yeah... Started as innocent grass roots movement, then republican political consultants started...oh what was it...the TEA PARTY TOUR bus thingy. A lot of the republican shit exists because it IS republican. The libertarian ppl of the tea party are done with it now.