Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html

Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership....

Now to be fair, the head of the Dallas GOP quickly denounced Broden's statement. And I'm inclined to give the head of the Dallas GOP the benefit of the doubt in the sincerity of his denouncement. That sure as hell doesn't obviate the fact that these insane views are pervasive throughout the Tea Party. These militia movements would normally be held to the fringe, but in today's economic climate they get a chance to ride the populist wave and actually get on the ballot. How can any one of us not listen to what these people are saying and shudder?


If you're looking for other examples you could do no better than Joe Miller, Tea Party candidate from Alaska.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/joe-millers-militia_b_766092.html


Or perhaps you could take a hard look at Sharon Angle:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html.


And here's Daniel Webster. Aside from Broden (who is actually proposing sedition make no mistake), I view Webster as just a shade less dangerous. His views on religion are squarely in the realm of fundamentalist. I that regard alone, I would really, really, not like to have this guy as my Senator.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-26/news/os-grayson-webster-taliban-ad-20100926_1_grayson-tv-campaign-ad-women-voters


What can be said about Christine O'Donnell that hasn't already be said? The perpetual Senate candidate with no actual legislative experience (this is what, her third attempted run for Senate?), doesn't think that evolution is a viable theory for the origin of mankind, wants to repeal the Health Care Reform law, and thinks that welfare and food stamps encourages laziness and drug use. You would think that in between tilts at the windmill she would, oh I don't know, actually try to get some experience at doing the job she's trying to get elected for.


You've also got Mike Church, an extremely popular right-wing extremist satellite radio talk show host. From his site:

http://www.mikechurch.com/index.php/welcome-to-mike-church-dot-com/daily-features/4381-the-5-ways-method-to-breaking-qobamacareq

Read his point #5 and then ask yourself, how can I guy that purports to believe so heavily in a literal (i.e., RAW) reading of the Constitution advocate for the states to have the power to actually secede from the Union. The Constitution allows states to be formed and join the Union, it doesn't allow them to leave. Hell, we even fought a war over that point.


I look forward to the false equivalencies, cognitive dissonance, and rationalizations sure to follow

-Yad

*shrug* Its not really unexpected for this election set. You have a prolonged economic crisis which always generates a backlash against incumbents, regardless of party. The problem is more pronounced because the minority party (i.e. the Republicans) is in the middle of an identity crisis. The RNC has failed to define a succinct platform and agenda for this campaign season and so local Republican parties have been setting up their own "ideal" candidates who conform to all their economic AND social views. The problem now is that by over reacting and running candidates who are much more conservative than normal, moderate Republican voters and independant voters are going to end up supporting Democrat candidates because they are ideologically closer to them. If the RNC had simply chosen to run on an economic platform, you would probably see a much closer election and possibly even see the Democrats lose control of one of the houses. Instead, I wouldn't expect to see a significant shift because the Republicans have panicked a bit too much by crying that everything is wrong with the Democrats and shifting the election points in favor of a conserative base that would have voted Republican regardless of who the Republican candidate was instead of making in-roads with the moderate Republican and independant voters that could swing the election in their favor.

Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.

As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.

Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.

Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.

Er...no

-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.

Why do they keep banging on about creationism?

That's the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Your confused.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do they keep banging on about creationism?

Some of them do. Just like some bang on about nonsense like aborting two year old babies in the Democratic Party. Every party, every group has its wing nuts. I just want to be their leader, or at least capable of making demands on organizations with deep pockets, lest I use my power over hordes of wingnuts...

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.

Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.

I doubt very much (lots of doubt here, if my doubt were a mountain it would be... a very large mountain) that the tea party will ever (read: never ever) cooperate with the Democratic Party on anything (nothing, nada, zip, zero, zulch).

Your understanding is so far from the actual truth of the matter that I am tempted to believe you're trolling.

These people are batty, (insane in the membrane, crazy like a crazy person, bad s*** bonkers, utterly out of touch with reality, lobotomy patients, they are a happy meal short of a happy meal, etc) they don't even agree with the party that spawned them, these are people who have looking into Gleen Becks watery little eyes and seen a light (demonic, unholy, or maybe just crazy... see above for descriptions).

They will never contribute to bipartisanship in Washington.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.

Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.

I doubt very much (lots of doubt here, if my doubt were a mountain it would be... a very large mountain) that the tea party will ever (read: never ever) cooperate with the Democratic Party on anything (nothing, nada, zip, zero, zulch).

Your understanding is so far from the actual truth of the matter that I am tempted to believe you're trolling.

These people are batty, (insane in the membrane, crazy like a crazy person, bad s*** bonkers, utterly out of touch with reality, lobotomy patients, they are a happy meal short of a happy meal, etc) they don't even agree with the party that spawned them, these are people who have looking into Gleen Becks watery little eyes and seen a light (demonic, unholy, or maybe just crazy... see above for descriptions).

They will never contribute to bipartisanship in Washington.

I would be surprised if more than 3 Tea Party candidates actually make it to Washington. I see alot of them getting defeated in close (4% o 6% difference) races with the swing vote being moderate republicans and independants who choose the Democrat candidate because they are closer to their ideological beliefs. Too many of the Tea Party candidates are trying to campaign on everything instead of two or three key issues and are alienating too many voters in the process.

I have no love of the Tea Party. However, I think despite their fairly divergent opinions and issues within the psuedo-organization and in some instances borderline crackpot views, you have to give them credit.

The reason? They're actually framing a surprising amount of the debate heading into the elections. The economy in general is obviously the most important issue. But the Tea Party has debate occurring around things like government spending and the size of government at a time when JOBS and personal financial security are the 800 lb. gorillas.

Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.

But this is typical Dem behavior. You'd think 8 years of "W" would have taught them that voters often respect you more for defiantly sticking to your opinion even if that opinion isn't popular.

Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.

False equivalencies; Cognitive dissonance; Rationalizations...I forgot to add feigned victimhood.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, the Tea Party's main complaint is the ongoing paralysis of legislation caused largely by Republican filibuster tactics.

Thus I am looking forwards to a more bi-partisan approach to government.

Er...no

-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.

Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do they keep banging on about creationism?

Some of them do. Just like some bang on about nonsense like aborting two year old babies in the Democratic Party. Every party, every group has its wing nuts. I just want to be their leader, or at least capable of making demands on organizations with deep pockets, lest I use my power over hordes of wingnuts...

And false equivalencies... you're almost there Frazzled. Now we just need some wide sweeping rationalizations. And if you could turn a blind eye to the statements and positions of those like Broden, Angle, and Webster that would be great too. K'thanks!!

-Yad

gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.

they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.

There might be rational people invovled with the Tea Party; however, I have not seen one yet. Admitedly this may be due to sensationalist media hounds that prefer to portray them as lunatics, foaming at the mouth.

There's something wrong with people that think republicans are too liberal...

Perhaps the Tea Party could be given Alabama and Mississippi. They could form a new country called illiteratria. Agnosto also hit it on the head.

Who do you think should run the country?

The will of the people as expressed in Congress, or the management of a fast food chain.

agnosto wrote:There's something wrong with people that think republicans are too liberal...

Not so much too liberal as just completely useless and ineffective.

-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.

Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.

-Yad

How is that cognitive dissonance?


http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values


Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...

Frazzled wrote:

-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.

Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.

-Yad

How is that cognitive dissonance?

Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...

Because it's quite obvious that you are inclined to vote for the party that has, by leaps and bounds, overseen an explosion in government spending, while decrying the Democratic party for it's spending. That in a nutshell is cognitive dissonance. Hmm, does ''venting diatribe'' fall into the feigned victimhood category

-Yad

What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.

Tyyr wrote:

agnosto wrote:There's something wrong with people that think republicans are too liberal...

Not so much too liberal as just completely useless and ineffective.

Yeah, there's a huge difference.

To those who are just hating on the Tea Party for the sake of being hip, though, there's really no point in making reasoned and logical points. Yes, there are some fools the Tea Party. Surprise. There's wingnuts in every group of people as Frazzled has already aptly pointed out.

olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.

What kind of fundamentalists are they?

Yad wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.

Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.

-Yad

How is that cognitive dissonance?

Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...

Because it's quite obvious that you are inclined to vote for the party that has, by leaps and bounds, overseen an explosion in government spending, while decrying the Democratic party for it's spending. That in a nutshell is cognitive dissonance. Hmm, does ''venting diatribe'' fall into the feigned victimhood category

-Yad

1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.
2. The Tea Party did not begin forming until the last years of the Bush Presidency. Please explain to me how they oversaw an explosion in government spending, while controlling neither the House or US Presidency?
That in a nutshell is...ignorance.

Monster Rain wrote:

olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.

What kind of fundamentalists are they?

Anti-masturbatorialists among others.

olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.

Also it helps to videotape them for our popcorn munching amusement.

How is government spending decided in the US?

In the UK, the governing party makes up a budget, and because they have a majority, it passes through parliament.

olympia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

olympia wrote:What's good for McDonald's is good for America! It would be best for the Tea Party to win big. Nothing discredits fundamentalists better than putting than giving their policies a run.

What kind of fundamentalists are they?

Anti-masturbatorialists among others.

So you are busting balls, then.

Clearly, taking a select few people from a movement made up of millions isn't something a reasonable person would actually do. Right?

I am happy that Ms. O'donnel gets so much airtime though. She certainly is amusing.

As noted, I am just sad she's not a witch. I was so looking forward to seeing that monkey army on the march, er flight.

My personal opinion is that both major parties have contributed equally to the downward spiral of the economy and the nation as a whole. Their respective ideologies are so far apart that there can be no "crossing the isle" on anything because they are afraid of losing the support of their base.

In fact, neither party fairly represents your average American citizen. Unfortunately we, as a whole, have never been able to break the whole Federalist/Anti-Federalist nonsense and move on. When Republicans go on and on about "big government" they're mouthing the same mantra that's been going on since Madison and Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party around 1792 which later became the modern Republican party after a few evolutions.

Let me break it down. Democrats espouse a centralized, authoritarian Federal government while Republicans have always believed that the states should be stronger than the national whole. It's the same state's rights issue that divided the country and was a major cause of the Civil War.

The Tea Party is a tiny but verbal segment that has had enough of the politics as usual. The vast majority of involved individuals seem to be ultra-conservatives though which just makes them a different flavor of the Republican party.

My final point for this rant is the office of the President and how one of the responsibilities of the President is to go out and stump for his party every election. As his employer, it pisses me off; he needs to get his butt back to D.C. and work, not travel the country trying to look out for people in his party. The President should not be beholden to any one party as he is supposedly the leader of the entire nation, not just those that vote Democrat or Republican.

/rant

Frazzled wrote:

Yad wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

-A budget thats gone off the rails (the UK should be keenly familiar in light of certain events)
-Government that is has grown too big and continues to expand into areas it needs to stay out of
-That whole economy thing.

Ahh... cognitive dissonance FTW.

-Yad

How is that cognitive dissonance?

Oh my mistake, I thought you wanted a discussion and not a venting diatribe. never mind...

Because it's quite obvious that you are inclined to vote for the party that has, by leaps and bounds, overseen an explosion in government spending, while decrying the Democratic party for it's spending. That in a nutshell is cognitive dissonance. Hmm, does ''venting diatribe'' fall into the feigned victimhood category

-Yad

1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.
2. The Tea Party did not begin forming until the last years of the Bush Presidency. Please explain to me how they oversaw an explosion in government spending, while controlling neither the House or US Presidency?
That in a nutshell is...ignorance.

When you quote the Tea Party manifesto, which is a basic regurgitation of Republican talking points, I take it to mean that's what you support. The only difference I see between you and the GOP/Tea Party is belief in some mythical 'free market'.

-Yad

^^^^I don't believe I've seen this before... someone with an ideological axe to grind trolling an internet forum.

Frazzled wrote:As noted, I am just sad she's not a witch. I was so looking forward to seeing that monkey army on the march, er flight.

She was actually much less interesting IRL than any of those news pieces made her out to be.