View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Location: Jeonju
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:44 am Post subject: Difference between Tea Partyites & Rush Limbaugh Dittohe |
|
|
Is there any? In other words, do those central to the Tea Party, or identifying themselves as believing most strongly in what they perceive that that label means, deviate at all from ordinary Republicanism? Not just something like "Tea Partyites believe in the primacy of the Constitution," but any difference on specific issues?
What do you think? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RMNC

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the difference:
Dittoheads agree with any and everything Limbaugh says.
Teabaggers agree with anything Sarah Palin says. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Quack Addict

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think knee jerk, bleeding heart liberals are ruining the country from the left. I think teabag, Rushies are ruining the country from the right. And me..."clowns to left of me, jokers to the right, stuck in the middle with you!" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Difference between Tea Partyites & Rush Limbaugh Dit |
|
|
jhuntingtonus wrote: |
Not just something like "Tea Partyites believe in the primacy of the Constitution," but any difference on specific issues?
What do you think? |
The Tea Party group is getting pulled into the Republican group HARD. Republicans saw them as vaguely similar and didn't want the Tea Party to do to them what Ralph Nader did to the Democrats in 2000. Sarah Palin is just the Republican Party's head of their "take over the Tea Party" task group.
The Tea Party is a conservative response to the Republican party utterly failing to be "conservative".
Ronald Reagan wrote: |
The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
|
The ORIGINAL Tea Party principles follow a much more old-school line of libertarianism.
ex.
1. Ending foreign wars that the government forces us to pay for and gives us minimal benefit.
2. A tax overhaul. Many want to repeal the income tax. A lot of people believe (myself included) that if we went back to paying our federal tax as one lump sum, once per year, we would care more where that money went.
3. Massive reductions in federal spending. This doesn't necessarily mean ending medicare, but f**k you Alaska, pay for your own bridge. The Constitution doesn't say anything about taking cash from one citizen and sending it to another state for their projects.
4. More personal freedom. This would cover most personal activities and it's what the Republicans want to suppress the most. Examples include abortion, firearms laws, drug use, etc. You probably don't hear about that anymore since much of it directly opposes the Republican Party. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ever wonder where the Tea Party comes from?
It is loosely based on Libertarian ideas as was stated above.
But then a group of Billionaires, like Steve Forbes and the Koch brothers got together and "started" this party. It bills itself as this grassroots political party. The truth is it has seriously deep pockets and has received an inordinate amount of hype from Fox news.
How can a billionaire and the average American have similar agendas? Well. they can't really.
If that wasn't enough. They have some of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard from any political party. Ending the FDA- the agency that makes sure out food is safe. Sure. I'll let you go first. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Location: Jeonju
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks. I've voted for two Libertarian presidential candidates, but the Tea Party doesn't seem that way at all to me, even if it started like that - for example, where were they about California's marijuana legalization initiative? If you are libertarian on economic issues only, you are not a libertarian - you are a conservative. Sort of the mirror image of groups such as the ACLU, which get pious about freedom of speech if it't on the liberal side, but are eerily silent about, say, political correctness at public universities.
So here's a question in response to my first responder: What is the difference in positions on issues between Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:42 am Post subject: Re: Difference between Tea Partyites & Rush Limbaugh Dit |
|
|
comm wrote: |
The Tea Party is a conservative response to the Republican party utterly failing to be "conservative". |
It started that way, then essentially got tied up in a Republican rebranding. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't appear to be much difference between teabaggers and the rest of the GOP-
"The indispensable religion and politics reporter Sarah Posner has been fairly lonely in pointing out that survey data show more than half of Tea Partiers�those new Republican recruits who supposedly don't care about social issues�identifying with the religious right. For example, at least two-thirds of Tea Partiers oppose abortion; the new, Mike Castle-less Republican majority in the House is, with a handful of exceptions, pro-life....
"But a real fight between the GOP and its new members? A split on foreign policy? A split on social issues? That's not going to happen as long as Barack Obama is president. The Tea Party isn't presenting some infinite challenge that threatens what the GOP establishment does. The Tea Party won its battles with Republicans because its beliefs and priorities were the ones most Republicans had in the first place."
http://www.slate.com/id/2276202/ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
BaldTeacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2010
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Republicans are a bunch of nerds, even more so than Democrats.
The Tea Party started out as a good idea, but now Sarah Palin's retarded as is up there speaking for them. She reminds me of Peggy Hill, but she's even stupider.
The total lack of societal standards that you see in liberalism is bad enough, but neoconservatism spreads it everywhere and accelerates it, all the while that they're claiming to be against it. The Tea Party will just get absorbed into the GOP, but it doesn't even matter because the Democrats and the GOP are both equally useless. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
redaxe
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The tea partiers are a bunch of racist old white people who don't want to pay any taxes. They feel the Republican party is not conservative enough. Basically just the 21st century version of dittoheads.
This thread will probably get deleted for being a political thread. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fat_Elvis

Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: In the ghetto
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
redaxe wrote: |
The tea partiers are a bunch of racist old white people who don't want to pay any taxes. They feel the Republican party is not conservative enough. |
+1
If the Tea Party are so libertarian and fiscally conservative where were they when Bush was President? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
redaxe wrote: |
The tea partiers are a bunch of racist old white people who don't want to pay any taxes. |
You've very clever.
The TP is divided into two factions. The first - and original - is the Ron Paul faction. These people are anti-war/empire and in favor of very limited government. The second is the Sarah Palin/Kristol/Bribart faction. They are neo-cons who arrived to subvert and/or take advantage of the movement.
For the most part, they are people who see the country as heavily indebted (it is) extremely corrupt (it is) and they correctly see the government as working against the interests of the middle class (it is). They're more productivist or populist than anything.
But, they're mostly white. This means they're racist.
The use of the pejorative racist is a strategy and not an accurate description.
Why would a middle class American want to pay taxes. What benefits do they get in return? Empire? The top and bottom against the middle. That's the reality.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak
White people in America must pay their taxes to their corporate/bankster overloads and support a layabout mass of vagrants. If they dare speak up, they're racist. It's a very useful way of controlling debate. It is utterly pathetic that you repeat the propaganda the overlords feed you, redaxe. It is a means of control, and you're allowing it to control you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fat_Elvis wrote: |
redaxe wrote: |
The tea partiers are a bunch of racist old white people who don't want to pay any taxes. They feel the Republican party is not conservative enough. |
+1
If the Tea Party are so libertarian and fiscally conservative where were they when Bush was President? |
They were in the midst of a boom from a credit expansion. They didn't know what was happening. Most PhD economists didn't know what was happening. By the by, I did know what was happening. So I was pissing and moaning about the problems, as I am now. Anyways, I guess anyone who opposes the current situation may only be from the sliver of the population who knew a train wreck was coming. Right? For one to have the authority to oppose something one must have had a perfect record in opposition in the past. If not = racist.
So I must ask. When Clinton laid the groundwork for the financial crisis when he decided not to regulate the CFTC and deregulated the banks, where were all the Dems protesting? God damn racist "liberals", right? How can they now hate the bankers when they collectively wanted to gargle Clinton's nuts? They still do.
Partisan politics will (or has) fry your brain. If possible - and it may not be - be reasonable. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Provence
Joined: 18 Oct 2008 Location: South Korea
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fat_Elvis

Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: In the ghetto
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mises wrote: |
Fat_Elvis wrote: |
redaxe wrote: |
The tea partiers are a bunch of racist old white people who don't want to pay any taxes. They feel the Republican party is not conservative enough. |
+1
If the Tea Party are so libertarian and fiscally conservative where were they when Bush was President? |
They were in the midst of a boom from a credit expansion. They didn't know what was happening. Most PhD economists didn't know what was happening. By the by, I did know what was happening. So I was pissing and moaning about the problems, as I am now. Anyways, I guess anyone who opposes the current situation may only be from the sliver of the population who knew a train wreck was coming. Right? For one to have the authority to oppose something one must have had a perfect record in opposition in the past. If not = racist.
So I must ask. When Clinton laid the groundwork for the financial crisis when he decided not to regulate the CFTC and deregulated the banks, where were all the Dems protesting? God damn racist "liberals", right? How can they now hate the bankers when they collectively wanted to gargle Clinton's nuts? They still do.
Partisan politics will (or has) fry your brain. If possible - and it may not be - be reasonable. |
OK, I'll be reasonable, not all Tea Partiers are racist, just some of them, like the ones who Provence referred to above, or Mark Williams (although fair's fair, other Tea Party groups have rejected him), or the ones who created the placards here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpwjvVaqyE
Ron Paul, while not strictly a Tea Partier, also has a pretty poor record on race relations, what with the racist comments in his newsletter in the late 80s/early 90s, and saying that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, and the financial support and backing from the likes of the KKK, David Duke, and assorted neo-Nazi groups which he has never hidden nor publicly denounced.
And if Tea Partiers didn't protest earlier because the economy was booming, where were they in the last 6-9 months of Bush's presidency, when the financial crisis really kicked in and he organised the bank bailout? Why did the Tea Party only really start in Feb 20089 after the inauguration of Barack Obama? Maybe because a substantial number of Tea Partiers perceived Bush to be "one of them". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|