The Tea Party--my two thoughts (thus far)

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by The_Fool, Aug 27, 2011.

  1. The_Fool

    The_Fool New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. From what I've heard, you're really into the constitution. Good. That will make the law a lot easier for you, I suppose. But, every politician of America, past and present, has to run by the Constitution as well. Take it, Johnny!


    2. This one is kind of a poke--if you get offended easily, please do not read. I don't like petty verbal assault.
    Why did The Tea Party name their party the Tea Party? When I think of a tea party, it sounds like tea time in Britian. A lot of British people actually still do have a set time of day, everyday, that drink tea. But, the Constitution is actually anti-British, I could say, because that's why America's Founding Fathers came and created the Constitution in North America. Why does your name sound like it's British? Not a good choice I would say, marketing wise.
     
  2. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,573
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "Every politician of America, past and present, has to run by the Constitution as well."

    Our history is full of presidents, and others, who didn't. President Lincoln, President Roosevelt, President Johnson, President Bush, President Obama. We now have an idiot in the White House who struts and says the Constitution is a "seriously flawed document" which he hopes to correct. Of course, he don't want to correct it in any legal manner.

    Tea Party? Named after the men who boarded a British ship and dumped tea in Boston Harbor in protest over the Stamp Tax Act. Marketing? Marketing is what the communist did when they named their minority party, Bolsheviks, which means "majority". It's called lying. I think the name is fine although it is not a political party. On the topic of marketing though, you might want to change your screen name.
     
  3. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The TP seems to me more interested in reinterpreting the Constitution to be more like the Articles of Confederation.
    While it's actually a quasi-movement (a lot of people jumping on board without actualyl understanding what it stands for, only what it's against), what consistency does exist in the TP leads me to believe its true ideology is neo-confederate.
     
  4. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It refers to the Boston Tea Party.
     
  5. injest

    injest New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    0

    yes, and the same general principals we were taught that the Boston Tea Party was about: not having a say in government.

    we feel that the Federal government isn't listening to the people anymore but to special interests and lobbying groups...that we no longer have a say. The health care debate was a perfect example. There has rarely been an issue that has driven so many people to protest (and very peacefully regardless of what the Progressives try to say) yet they were mocked and taunted and completely ignored. The health care bill was passed in SPITE of what the citizens wanted, anyone watching Pelosi marching with that oversized hammer thru a crowd of opposition had to be delusional not to see that what they were doing was a mockery of our system of government.

    Think of the massive demonstrations for the Civil Rights Act...those demonstrations were FOR the legislation being enacted; not against. This is the first time in history that I know of where legislation was passed while thousands of American citizens wrote, marched, and sent letters demanding it NOT be passed.

    The Federal government is ruling AGAINST the will of the American citizen.
     
  6. Lady Luna

    Lady Luna New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,468
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well said! We have a president in office who for the first time in history has sided with a foreign power (Mexico) against a state (Arizona). What should be considered treason is being ignored, making Congress complicit in this travesty. Conditions politically are worse than those that prompted the Boston tea party.

    The movement is called the tea party for reasons others have stated above, but it has also become an acronym:

    Taxed
    Enough
    Already
     
  7. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is kind of ridiculous.
    First of all, do you really believe that the US has never before passed legislation that caused a large, vocal minority to flip out and protest?
    Or are you really convinced that the TP represents the majority (this is not what polls suggest)?
    What exactly do you think uber-conservative governance will do to stop rich lobbyists from having too much control (I gotta hear this)?

    And how does any of this actually equal "no say in government?"
    You voted.
    You get to have legal protests.
    You have representatives in government.

    All I see is an inflated sense of entitlement, leading to a radical redefinition of what "no say in government" means.
    This is what scares me about the Tea Party.
    Are you guys all rhetoric and hyperbole or are you eventually going to stop accepting elections that don't go your way?
     
  8. tarantula

    tarantula New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why did James Madison change his views and supported a central bank? Because he found it was helpful in the war of 1812. What was going when Greenspan lowered the Fed rates and kept them down? War on terrorism, Iraq. Seems to me Paul's positions may have more consistency than that, whether one agrees or not.

    To say it's neo-confederate is the same as saying the ACW was not really about slavery at all, which is neo-confederate in itself.
     
  9. Third Mexican Empire

    Third Mexican Empire New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    JavaBlack has said it.

    Why are having no say in government? You voted

    Taxed Enough Already? Maybe you shouldn't have voted those representatives who voted for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

    You are not a majority, you are everything wrong with America.
     
  10. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This from a guy with the name "Third Mexican Empire".

    Pardon while I take any comment you offer with a salt mine.

    :rolleyes:

    I also assume you are not an American citizen, right?
     
  11. Third Mexican Empire

    Third Mexican Empire New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, but I have spent time in America(years at a time), to witness the Tea Party first hand.
     
  12. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have seen what created the TP. It began when conservative republicans wanted to distance themselves from booosh and the republican lable that was associated with messing up the American economy. Hence they came up with an idea of using the consitution in a ignorant way only a simple mind could understand, and used it as an agenda to rant about government power and blame them for the mess that the were facing in 2008. IN the elections of 2010 we seen a lot of t-baggers get elected running on the same rants and excuses about bad government and how they were going to fix everything with crazy one liner ideas and no real solutions.

    During the internal conflict of Congres' debt crisis, we seen the true colors of the TP. They did the same thing as they do as political conservatives, the new ones kissed up to the old time relic repbulicans, and just opposed any changes for progress. More or less they just put on their old conservative hats and refuse to come up with a intelligent solution. When one NV conservative politician was asked, why he voted against any budget plans to cut spending by 4 trillion vs 2 trillion, he spouted the same old BS retoric about how they needed to cut spending and how they would oppose any taxes. When told there were no new taxes in the bill he opposed and there was 4 trillion cuts he went back to the same old BS about how they need to create jobs. and how he thinks Boner's bill is better, When asked what is it about Boner's bill that makes it better, the Fool had no answer and went back to He wants legeslation to create jobs. Evidently this fool has no clue what he is or is not opposing, and morons support this kind of idiot in congress. Dumb fools.

    We all know that most if not all t-baggers and conservatives lack the cognitive ability to interpret any legeslation, as a result they oppose any legislation unless their "Base" tells them to do otherwise. Only a simple one can't realy see through the propaganda and finger pointing these politician do to keep their jobs. But there is no reason for morons like the NV congressman to be in office. Any 12 year old can do the same thing. talk BS and not know what they are talking about.

    This is my evaluation of the T-baggers and their ability to function in governement. Only a fool would vote for a moron conservative who hates big government and is hell bent on destroying it. Because that is destroing the USA.

    All these government haters like to hate with no reason other than someone told them how to do it. And they are the first ones in line for the security and protection and services of the government. Bunch of idiots
     
  13. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's some mind-bending equivalence there.
    National banks were created and dissolved quite a few times in the beginning of the nation. Did Hamilton start it just for war? Did every chairman before the Randroid Greenspan keep it around for war?
    Talk about a skewed sample. Or cherry-picking.
    Hey, how many wars were fought for the purpose of creating or preserving the Fed (you claim the opposite and equate that to a war breaking out due to one side being unmovable on the issue of slavery)?
     
  14. SmokemoNSC

    SmokemoNSC New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For a self described open minded liberal as yourself, don't you find it interesting that you see no problem using offensive slurs for homosexuals to describe those who you disagree with.

    Sad really.
     
  15. SmokemoNSC

    SmokemoNSC New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Fed/central banks and fiat money in general have been used to finance wars for some time. It is not a new nor original idea - in fact it has been the tool of despots for most of history.

    Here's a brief example for the US

    Continental Dollar - Revolutionary War
    Greenback - Civil War
    Federal Reserve Note - We've been at war with someone almost perpetually since 1913.
     
  16. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    21,729
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By the same token you could say taxes have been used to finance war.
    Or fines. Or tariffs.
    Even donations would fall under the same criticism ("We're doing a big fundraiser to support the war effort!")

    This is largely because defense has been the primary job of government for most of history.

    Your argument has no correlation.
    It's basically noting that we've had war for most of history. Duh.
    And that people use tools that produce revenue to raise money in times when the government needs it. Duh.

    To say that the Fed is a tool of war is about as valid as saying gold is a tool of war.
    The only way to elimintae war is to eliminate money!
    Of course, the causation is way off, as the scope of war is actually decreasing across the world, even as use of central banks is high as ever!
     
  17. tarantula

    tarantula New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was discussing Paul's ideology, Hamilton was a believer in big government, but a big factor for him was also revolutionary war debt. The point is that the inflation it creates is a stealth tax that politicians don't need to impose explicitly, especially with unpopular wars. Formerly by monarchies it was done by debasing the gold or silver content of the currency. Now maybe Paul doesn't have those views primarily, maybe it's just unconstitutional to him. In that case I might agree more with the neo-confederate charge (seeing as all neo-confederates are libertarians too).
     

Share This Page