Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Tea Party- please explain
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Like I said, I DO NOT assume they are stupid. So, if they understand all this and still vote for these policies, it must be because they recognize it's not in their own best interests but they prefer it anyway. Which may demonstrate a certain adherence to the philosophy that trumps self-interest, which is certainly a possibility... but doesn't explain the inconsistencies elsewhere. OR, they don't care as much about these issues and are largely focused on the other areas. Most of the people I've heard from within the tea party repeating the "Less taxes" mantra do it under the guise of "I don't want MY money going to support THOSE programs," do not realize that, largely, they are receiving more than they are giving to the government. What they have articulated (them, not me) is a rant about social programs that steal their money and give it to undeserving people and that taxes need to be cut to avoid this. This IS the scare-tactic previously used about welfare queens and the like. It's just dressed up differently. Look at the facts: "Republican states" receive more money per capita from the federal government than "Democrat states", particularly when you factor in farm subsidies. These people are being used and are preyed upon because of their frustration with the current situation, as someone up above articulated quite perfectly. |
Anonymous
|
Let's focus specifically on Health Care--an issue that certainly riled up the Tea Partiers. You see the benefits to THEM of universal coverage, guarantees for pre-existing conditions etc. etc. Sure--makes sense. My guess is they see changes to the choices they currently have, and long term costs that they have guagued were not accurately assessed/described by those passing the law. They're probably also annoyed at the haste with which it was passed, and the fact that so few seemed to have read it. You see benefits, they see something that may be injurious to them in the long run 'rammed down' their throats. Perhaps there are pluses and minuses to the act--and intelligent people can see it in different ways as impacting their interests? I have full respect for the right of Tea Partiers to come to their own decisions.
This almost reminds me of both sides of the abortion debate deciding what is in the 'best interests' of the woman and disparaging her ultimate choices from their perspective of what is 'best', rather than letting her intelligently assess a complex issue and come to her own conclusion. |
Anonymous
|
http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=isch:1&q=tea+party+movement+signs&revid=1599092205&sa=X&ei=5qgsTPDmKoL6lwea56yFCQ&ved=0CCAQ1QIoAA
Look there and tell me honestly that the bulk of this movement, which is largely constituted and directed by the people on the ground (not the people running "official" websites and putting out soundbites) and tell me that these people are focused on the points you mentioned. This is being characterized as a 'grass roots' movement (though it's a lot closer to astroturfing, if you ask me), yet you want us to ignore what the PEOPLE involved in it are saying/doing. They define themselves as grass roots, so it's perfectly legit to evaluate these people as part of the movement. Again, I'm not saying at its core that there aren't legitimate points and valid arguments. But most of the people who've gotten swept up into it have done so for all the wrong reason, largely racism, xenophobia, and a general fear of losing the privilege they've enjoyed for so long. |
Anonymous
| I challenge your assertion that MOST of the people have gotten involved in it due to the reasons you mention, and not fiscal policy. The basis for your astounding statistical finding? |
Anonymous
| I'm basing it on the people I've met involved in the party, the people I've seen at rallies, and the people I've heard call in to talk radio shows. Maybe they are a particularly vocal minority, but absent any info to the contrary, what other conclusions can I draw? What evidence do YOU have that I am wrong? |
Anonymous
| I base it upon the platform I have read, suspicions of unsubstantiated claims of racist cries towards congressmen, suspicions about why the press has pretty much blacked out coverage of Tea Party rallies (any such black out raises question marks for me), the bits of rallies I have watched televised, the people I have spoken with who subscribe to many of the Tea Party tenets (not all, not uniformly) and a basic faith that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not racist, intellectually lazy slobs. Sounds like both our views are based on our own perspective and not incredibly scientific. However, I AM NOT slandering a group of people, whereas you are. |
Anonymous
|
So there is no evidence that a certain amount of racism pervades the Tea Party movement? I think I've provided enough. Does that mean every Tea Partier is a racist? No. But is a lot of the support drummed up on racial fear and animosity? I think so.
I'm curious... how does "media blackout" give any information about what the party is about? |
Anonymous
haste? rammed down their throats? LOL! You listen to too much Fox, my friend! This bill took many months and a lot of discussion and compromise to get passed. It wasn't rammed down anyone's throats. It passed and that's the way our democracy works. Itf you opposed it, OK. What happened is, you were on the losing side. That happens, of course, but it doesn't mean that anything was rammed down your thoat! |
Anonymous
I agree the democratic process was followed; I also am guessing that people who were extremely against the concept of universal health care feel like their views were not taken into account in the final bill--which after all--was not bipartisan. I also agree that there is a little racism and other extremism on the fringe of the Tea Party. I think you get weirdness on the 'fringe' of every group. What I am reacting to is assessing the whole according to this small fringe, statements like "MOST TEA PARTY MEMBERS ARE MOTIVATED BY RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA...". How does that not sound a bit hysteric-- considering that the point of view MOST ARTICULATED by members/at rallies is a basic divergent economic view? |
Anonymous
Again, I ask you to look at the signs I linked to and tell me that they are only talking about economics. And before you dismiss this as, "Well, yea, EVERY group has crazies," show me how the same sentiment is expressed in such numbers in other major political movements and are not denounced by the more mainstream elements. These people have been seen, in increasing numbers, at EVERY major tea party rally. They are not the fringe. They make up the bulk at this point. And, again, given that the movement is attempting to characterize itself as "grass roots" then their IS no fringe. The movement is the people and the people are saying: http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=isch:1&q=racist+tea+party+signs&revid=1405345475&sa=X&ei=-h8tTMiFCIW0lQeex6CsCQ&ved=0CCIQ1QIoAg And before you try, I did a similar search substituting "democrat" with "tea party" and got... MORE TEA PARTY SIGNS! Because they are currently the only group anywhere close to the mainstream political process that is going out with blatantly racist signs. I'm also not saying everyone is an explicit racist. But a lot of the rhetoric is predicated on racial animus. For instance, all the people saying we need to support the Arizona immigration legislation because of all the crime being exported from Mexico to here is ignoring all the facts that demonstrate that areas with high immigration actually have LOWER crime. But that doesn't fit the carefully constructed narrative of scary brown folks. And all the people wanting to end government assistance to "welfare queens" (actual tea party/conservative rhetoric) are ignoring the fact that most government assistance goes to white folks, largely through farm subsidies. But again, that doesn't fit the narrative of lazy black folks mooching of hard-working white Americans. Are these people explicitly racist? No. But are their implicit racial biases being played on to support a party that ultimately has no interest in them and is largely interested solely in reducing taxes for upper class folks? YEP! |
Anonymous
| Example of a group with hate speech at its fringe--hmmmm......are you serious? Whether it is left or right (anti-war protestors or NRA) every group has extremism at its fringe. Look up the posters people held at anti-Bush/Gulf War II rallies. I'm not going to paint all Quakers and pacifists with that brush though. |
Anonymous
| And seriously, I haven't heard anyone talk about 'welfare queens' since the 80's. Are you a retired 'social justice' professor by any chance? |
Anonymous
|
I hear it regularly on talk radio. Tune in to Limbaugh or Savage or Beck. You'll hear that or similar derivations. The rhetoric isn't gone, even if it's dressed up differently or not coming out of politicians' mouths.
You still haven't given examples. You're just saying, "Well, yea, it happens over there, too!" What racism was promoted at Bush/GulfWarII rallies? There was certainly a lot of ugliness, but I never saw racism. And, if there was, I doubt any of those people identified as Quakers and, if they did, I sure as hell bet the Quakers denounced them. You're comparing apples to oranges, my friend. You're not full of shit by any chance, are you? |
Anonymous
|
No -- but perhaps you are. Limbaugh (and his 'welfare queens' -- sorry , what a blast from the past...like multiple gold chains and parachute pants). Anyway, Limbaugh has zero relationship to the Tea Party besides having criticized them. To apply his rhetoric to the Tea Party is you just being sloppy. And Hate Speech is a big umbrella --racist speech just a sub-category. All idiots are welcome to join the tent, and from what I have seen at various left and right demonstrations--the idiots always show up on the edges with their cleverly worded hate signs and deeply intolerant views. Again--fringe. Most Americans of either side, as far as I can tell, are not of that ilk.
|
Anonymous
|
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Fairly good collection of anti-Bush hate posters. Perhaps they don't disturb you. I find them sick. Again, I don't characterize all anti-war protestors by the actions of a few. I also am fascinated by your claim that there is inherent, subtle racism in the Tea Party platform. Ie - being pro border control and legal immigration. I think people who hold that view are pretty fed up with being called racist and protectionist for wanting to maintain national sovereignty and the integrity of our federal law. It is an easy card to wave "You support border control so you hate 'foreigners' , you are a xenophobe, etc etc.". It's also a very unfair card. Many of the same people (not necessarily white btw) are FOR legal immigration, FOR equal pay for equal work (in the sense of migrant workers) etc. That's probably why 70% pf the population can be FOR the AZ measures AND FOR immigration reform (some overlap of people, no?). The reason many people want border control FIRST is they feel played by the government's promises to bring the situation into a legal light. They remember Reagan's amnesty (another flashback to the 80's) that was supposed to do everything immigration reform is supposed to do today. People want legal pathways AND legal teeth for border violators and employer violators. You may disagree--but I hardly see how any of that is racist (most overused word ever, besides 'respect' -- least understood word ever, I think....). |