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.

It started well enough, a grass roots party that caught wildfire and stopped the democrats cold. It became the new buzz word and the place everybody wanted to run and kiss butt. Then thins went sour. Here are the reasons I think that happened.

1 Really bad leadership.Most of the tea party leadership, were failed politicans and shock jocks Others were rich people who wanted a power grab. Then there were the crazy nuts that were let in because they railed on the left insanly

2.Video footage. Without a firm leadership, anybody could grab the mic and say whatever. Racial slurs were common and crazy ideas like 'Digital tv is gonna mind control you!" went viral. While footage of Teaparty protesters harrasing sick protesters and verbaly assaulting black congressmen became easy talking poits for the left.

3. Geeting waaaay to angry. You've seen it or heard it, some radio or tv host goes off on a woman yelling like a 3 year old, because she said something he didn't like. No man should ever talk to a lady like that, for starters, and secondly yelling at somebody is the best way to insure they will never hear a word you say.

4.Leaning to the right, a bit too much. Everyone was so in a rush to get to the right we ended up with people talking about trading chickens for doctor's visits, intergration, and leaving the union.

5. We stand for for....um? The tea party had at least 50 stances on any given issue. The constitution shouldn't be changed one second, the next it should be. The government should stay out of the oil spill/Why isn't the government doing anything about the oil spill, and my favorite The government should let the market fix itself/ The government should be fixing the jobs market. it's like they rolled a d6 on everything they did.

6.Letting in no good republicans. Old washed up republicans used the Tea party to try and make a comeback, from john Mccains "I was never a mavrick!"To other senetors running away from bills they thought of themselves. These same republicansare now retreating from the teaparty now they they have won the primaries.

7.Purity test. It's like the age old, "Are you black enough" thing. Just a way of stamping out people who don't agree with you, and that's a great way to kill a populist grass roots movement. Who laied these rules out? what if i'm a conservative that supports gays? too bad. What if I lean left but think some programs could be cut? Oh well. You will never have peole agree 100% of the time on everything. that's how bush and the rebublicans as a whole got swept in 2006.

8.Fox news. They used the tea party, and then when teaparty members started running, they were quick to say, "You should vote republican to make sure the Democrats lose." They then used the Tea party to whore out, "Democrats are bad and Obama is the devil" books.

9.Say what?!? The tea party became the platform to say things that whould normally get people in trouble, under the guise of free speech, prety soon it became like looking at a live action internet forum with no mods.

10 What's your issue, man. The tea party started because people were mad about the economy. That has been overcome by people talking about how far away should a place of worship be, gays getting married or going to war, owning guns to fight off the government, Islam is a cult, Mexicans cause every thing including cancer, democrats want a one world government, and black democrats are Communist russian spies. People could get behind the first issue, not so much the rest.

I really do feel like this was a wasted chance for a viable 3rd party, and not nutcases gone wild.

We are having a postmortem for something that isn't dead yet?

How the Tea Party faltered: It was created.

Ahtman wrote:We are having a postmortem for something that isn't dead yet?

This.

The tea party is now in the same position most young movements are. It has yet to reach consensus and outsiders are latching on to try and save their careers. That isn't the same thing as faltering.

personally I think tea partiers are a godsend to democrats. they're alienating alot of people whose support they need to get their guy into the white house. I'm hoping and praying that they and the christian right get together and nominate palin in 2012. There's no way the country will ever vote her into office. Not after bush.

As long as the republican party is driven by extremists like the tea partiers or the fundamentalist right they will stay in opposition. which is just fine.
AF

Falteres as in most of the Teaparty canidates that ran in the republican races didn't get the nod. Also the whole anti incombent thing turned out to be a bust for both parties. The tea party has only widened the gap between conservative moderates and fringe members



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100825/ap_on_el_se/us_republican_fight

AbaddonFidelis wrote:personally I think tea partiers are a godsend to democrats. they're alienating alot of people whose support they need to get their guy into the white house. I'm hoping and praying that they and the christian right get together and nominate palin in 2012. There's no way the country will ever vote her into office. Not after bush.

As long as the republican party is driven by lazy people and people in denial of the source of our economic problems *cough* House minority leader *cough* they will stay in opposition. which is just fine.
AF

Fix'd for ya

But anyway... I think the right as a whole has just been a bunch of things that just do not make sense.

Like having the whole lame-duck period off depending on who wins the election or not?

And how the tax cuts are a major part of why we are in debt, yet saying that we do not have to pay for them since they are already in place (can someone explain that to me please?).

thanks for fixing my post <eyes roll>

sexiest_hero wrote:It started well enough, a grass roots party that caught wildfire and stopped the democrats cold. It became the new buzz word and the place everybody wanted to run and kiss butt. Then thins went sour. Here are the reasons I think that happened.

The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world. These are some of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and they are huge financiers of the libertarian movement, helped finace the anti-health care astroturfing effort, and are major funders of the right wing noise machine. Basically their goal is to destroy the government and reduce the greater mass of Americans to impoverished serfs without any legal recourse against the economic power of the elites. And if not for Fox News relentlessly promoting the Tea Party events, they would have already disappeared.

For a real grassroots movement, you need to look at the left. Detroit recently hosted a socialist national forum drew 15,000 people (to Detroit), and that was without any corporate sponsorship and without any mainstream media coverage at all. Not even MSNBC, supposedly the Fox of the left, reported the event.

The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932. They are the exact same thing: Aggressive right-wing movements funded by wealthy elites, whose beliefs are primarily a grab bag of nonsense and insanity all predicated on excessive amounts of hate and fear. The Tea Party is basically a bunch of idiots and suckers who have bought into the right wing's nonsensical beliefs that a lack of constraint on economic power is somehow equatable to freedom-for-all, and that socialists and progressives are the enemy.

Which is hilarious, since its the leftists (the real leftists, the ones that aren't allowed on television and are completely ignored by the mainstream media) that have all the ideas that would get us out of our current mess, and even give the conservatives the smaller government and lower taxes they claim to crave. But if those leftist's ideas were embraced, it would ruin men like the Koch brothers, so the elites that push the right-wing agenda spend millions to rally useful idiots to their causes. Hence, tea parties.

grat now lets rule 34 it to ensure its continued existance QUICKLY!

warboss spinetwizta wrote:grat now lets rule 34 it to ensure its continued existance QUICKLY!

Stop posting that everywhere. Spouting memes like a /b/tard doesn't help your case at all.

On-topic: The Tea Party was always a joke. It's based on xenophobia, nationalism and extremist libertarianism. They'd be laughed off the political scene over here.

Cheese Elemental wrote:On-topic: The Tea Party was always a joke. It's based on xenophobia, nationalism and extremist libertarianism. They're a bunch of bloody nice blokes, and most people would be more than happy to have a barbie and drink a few tubes of lager with them over here.

Fixed.

On a serious note, I think their problems stem from the name - it's just not credible.

Tea party makes me think:



...which looks like splendid fun, of course, but I think The Patriot Movement would be better. Snappier. Plus it sounds like a Ludlum novel.

Albatross wrote:Tea party makes me think:



...which looks like splendid fun...

This. Except with more Edwardian ladies, parasols and cucumber sandwiches.

Lower taxes and smaller government? Oh I say, that would be delightful. More tea vicar?

Exactly. A civilised setting for civilised racis-, erm, I mean 'patriots'.

By the way, am I the only one who wants to go to that dog tea party RIGHT NOW?

Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.

Well.... the tea partiers aren't clamoring for an end to the treaty of versailles.... that's at least one question they're pretty moderate on.

I disagree with the tea party platform too but calling them nazis is wrong. American politics has plenty of name calling and wild accusations in it. Point of fact they dont have a whole lot in common. Nazis were committed to anti semitism, authoritarian rule, and extensive state intervention in the private sector. Tea partiers arent any more or less anti semetic than the rest of the white population in this country and are actively opposed to authoritarianism and state intervention in the market place.

Anyway I think they're wrong but that doesnt make them nazis. You can disagree with someone's politics without villifying them you know.
AF

Now that I think about it, it reminds me of the Know-Nothing Party. It's just missing a famous person as it's leader.

I think thats a fairer comparison.

Gailbraithe wrote:The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world. These are some of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and they are huge financiers of the libertarian movement, helped finace the anti-health care astroturfing effort, and are major funders of the right wing noise machine.

Freedomworks, one of the primary groups responsible for the creation of the Tea Party, just moved into the same building in New York as FOX News.

The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932. They are the exact same thing: Aggressive right-wing movements funded by wealthy elites, whose beliefs are primarily a grab bag of nonsense and insanity all predicated on excessive amounts of hate and fear.

I'm no fan of the Tea Party but that's a bit much.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Now that I think about it, it reminds me of the Know-Nothing Party. It's just missing a famous person as it's leader.

there we have it, thats probably the best comparison you could find

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.

I disagree with the tea party platform too but calling them nazis is wrong. American politics has plenty of name calling and wild accusations in it. Point of fact they dont have a whole lot in common. Nazis were committed to anti semitism, authoritarian rule, and extensive state intervention in the private sector. Tea partiers arent any more or less anti semetic than the rest of the white population in this country and are actively opposed to authoritarianism and state intervention in the market place.

Fascism doesn't require antisemitism. Islamaphobia, homophobia, any kind of fear of an other is all that is necessary for fascism. The Tea Party (and conservative movement in general) is a nascent fascist movement, and it's fairly easy to demonstrate. First one needs a definition of fascism. I myself find Umberto Eco's essay "Eternal Fascism: Or 14 Ways of Looking At A Blackshirt" to be a robust and thorough definition of fascism (or more precisely, ur-fascism) that is useful for such discussions. Alternate definitions of fascist exist, but Eco's definition is in-line with most scholarly work on the subject and presents a nice 14 point checklist one can compare against the Tea Party/conservative movement.

The only real difference (and it is a real and important difference) is that the conservative movement is, for the moment, less violent than the fascist movements of the 20th century. But the violent rhetoric ("second ammendment remedies" being my favorite euphemism for "vote for us or we'll kill you" ever) is a dangerous warning sign, and always presents the danger of inciting real violence.

But if the slew of extreme right candidates who have rode this tide of crazy to the nov. 4th election all lose (which I suspect most will), then what happens? Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?

In 1994 the right whipped its extreme base up into a frothing hysteria to take down Bill Clinton, and they rode that wave of anger and rage they stirred up to electoral victory. And then, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh struck a blow for 2nd Amendment rights and a smaller, less intrusive government when he blew up a bomb and killed 450 of his fellow Americans. We've had a dozen attempted and/or successful terroristic attacks from the right in the last two years. How many of them did we hear about in the news? How many of them were properly identified as right wing terrorism?

I mean seriously, there are people in this country right now running for positions in government that believe that we should have internment camps for Muslims. You may find it hard to believe that fascism could exist in America, but all the conditions for it are ripe. The worst part, in my feeling about it, is that you can't even have a rational discussion about it because simply pointing out that what the right is currently preaching is totally fascism is considered "insulting" or "Godwin's Law." And it's a horrible social no-no to insult the thin-skinned conservatives. They demand appeasement, and insist that no one call them by name...

Given that we're talking about the Tea Party I suppose it was inevitable that someone would Godwin's Law this thing pretty fast. I expected a little build up though rather than one person just leaping for that comparison.

Gailbraithe wrote:The worst part, in my feeling about it, is that you can't even have a rational discussion about it because simply pointing out that what the right is currently preaching is totally fascism is considered "insulting" or "Godwin's Law." And it's a horrible social no-no to insult the thin-skinned conservatives. They demand appeasement, and insist that no one call them by name...

Yeah, calling the other side baby Nazis is just a really great way to open up a frank and honest discussion. No one could ever find that comparison insulting.

You expected polite discussion and debate on the internet?



Tea partiers don't care. Foam and rant on the internet. the tea partiers will vote.

Death to the Clan Incumbent!

Gailbraithe wrote:
Fascism doesn't require antisemitism. Islamaphobia, homophobia, any kind of fear of an other is all that is necessary for fascism.

you didnt say fascists. you said nazis.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The Tea Party (and conservative movement in general) is a nascent fascist movement, and it's fairly easy to demonstrate. First one needs a definition of fascism. I myself find Umberto Eco's essay "Eternal Fascism: Or 14 Ways of Looking At A Blackshirt" to be a robust and thorough definition of fascism (or more precisely, ur-fascism) that is useful for such discussions. Alternate definitions of fascist exist, but Eco's definition is in-line with most scholarly work on the subject and presents a nice 14 point checklist one can compare against the Tea Party/conservative movement.

A medieval scholar wouldnt be my first stop if I were looking for a scholarly definition of fascism. In the historical sense Fascism is a political movement beginning in Italy in the 1920s and spreading to other parts of Europe as a response to communism and the great depression. It refers to specific people and to specific ideas. Only in its modern sense is it a broad brush for liberals to tar their conservative opponents with - which is of course what Umberto Eco means by "ur-fascism" or "eternal fascism" as opposed to just "fascism."

All the same lets look at his points.
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.


How far do these 14 points correspond to the tea party movement?
1. Fairly well. Tea partiers are definitely traditionalists. But then so is any conservative, so I think that goes to my point about Eco wanting to tar his political opponents by calling them dirty names. (its not just the fascists of Italy and Germany we need to beware of.... its all fascists [read conservatives])
2. Definitely not. Rejection of modernism would be advocating a state religion, monarchy, the return to political power of a landed aristocracy, hereditary bondage to the land, etc etc. Tea party is another word for libertarian, and libertarianism is definitely a modern, not a pre-modern, political philosophy.
3. Definitely not. Some tea partiers dont like the intellectual establishment, but if you read what Eco wrote under his 3rd point, what he really means is anti-intellectualism. Libertarians might have a wrong philosophy but they are not stupid and they are not anti-intellectuals. Atlas Shrugged, the Bell Curve, etc., are works that make reasoned arguments and persuade to man's rationality, not to his prejudices, as Eco will later say is a defining hall mark of fascism.
4 and 5. No more or less so than can be applied to any other political party right now. Umberto Eco says that an Ur-Fascist regards disagreement as treason. The tea partiers are irritated and there is definitely a group of people within them that regards their political opponents as traitors, but so far Palin has not advocated putting the President to death by firing squad (for instance) or putting Nancy Pelosi on trial for being a traitor. Additionally you, by calling your political opponents a bunch of nazis, are participating in this same activity - intolerance for difference of opinion and the suggestion that your opponents arent real americans - they're fascists. Presumably if it came down to it you would advocate force to stop these american nazis and their evil plans, since that was, after all, the only way to deal with the german nazis.
6. I guess. We're all frustrated. That's part of modern life. For Eco or you to start psychoanalyzing your political opponents (their politics stems from personal, sexual, professional frustration etc) is besides the point. Maybe the tea partiers are frustrated. Maybe you are. So what? Its the idea, not the person, that matters. I'm honestly surprised that Eco would descend to this kind of ad hominem attack, but I guess everyone has their moments of weakness. Dont be a slave to the man with a PhD - anyone whose thinking clearly can see that this is *not* a valid grounds for attacking your political opponents.
7. No. Tea partiers are not advancing a *racial* or a *nationalist* agenda - they are advancing an *economic* agenda of *limited government.* This one is completely inapplicable.
8. No. The tea partiers are *supporting* not *opposing* the wealthy class in this country. In a way it surprises me, because the most ardent republicans tend to be pretty poor, but they consistently vote the economic interests of their employers rather than their own. Anyway the tea party is not a reaction to the ostentatious wealth of the left - those people are the drivers, not the enemies, of the tea party movement.
9. Fair. Libertarians tend to view economic competition as a kind of darwinian process where might makes right.
10. Almost fair. He ruins it by talking about the aristocracy. There is no landed, hereditary aristocracy in this country, therefor the tea party cannot support it. In so much as we have any kind of aristocracy at all it is an aristocracy of wealth and ability. But thats true of any country with a modern economy, so whatever.
11. Fair. But how is that a bad thing? I dont know that the struggle to be a hero necessarily leads to the killing of other people as Eco says. Maybe in Europe 1920-1944 it did. For Ayn Rand it explicitly does not. The counter point here is that to a liberal like Eco no one is a hero - we are all just sort of insignificant drifting specs who can only accomplish things in groups. Its an old debate and I have to say I prefer the conservative take on this one. As individuals we matter, and so do our struggles. That's heroism.
12. Not only is this point nonsense in and of itself, but it is not even necessarily applicable to tea partiers. I have no idea what their sexual practices are and it doesnt really matter. I cant believe Eco is taking his arguments here. What a joke.
13. No. Libertarianism is based on the *cult* of individual rights, its aim is not to deprive people of their individual rights, but to expand them. As any real libertarian will tell you republicans and emocrats both want to deprive you of your rights - they just want to deprive you of different kinds of rights.
14. Maybe. Both sides of the political debate in this country use alot of dumbed down language (calling the opponents nazis for instance) so that even stupid people can understand the main thrust of their arguments. This is no more or less applicable to tea partiers than to any other faction.

I'm not sure that I agree with Eco that there is even such a thing as an ur-fascist, but even if there was I dont think his definitions are applicable to tea pertiers.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The only real difference (and it is a real and important difference) is that the conservative movement is, for the moment, less violent than the fascist movements of the 20th century. But the violent rhetoric ("second ammendment remedies" being my favorite euphemism for "vote for us or we'll kill you" ever) is a dangerous warning sign, and always presents the danger of inciting real violence.

But if the slew of extreme right candidates who have rode this tide of crazy to the nov. 4th election all lose (which I suspect most will), then what happens? Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?

You sound pretty convinced of the same point. Presumably if the tea partiers are nazis all good americans should oppose them. With force if we have to. Your rhetoric leads directly to violence and that's why I think it's my obligation, as someone who *does* believe in democratic government and the possibility of *reasoned discourse* to oppose it. I dont like Palin or that crowd either, but calling them nazis is wrong both morally and factually.

Gailbraithe wrote:
In 1994 the right whipped its extreme base up into a frothing hysteria to take down Bill Clinton, and they rode that wave of anger and rage they stirred up to electoral victory. And then, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh struck a blow for 2nd Amendment rights and a smaller, less intrusive government when he blew up a bomb and killed 450 of his fellow Americans. We've had a dozen attempted and/or successful terroristic attacks from the right in the last two years. How many of them did we hear about in the news? How many of them were properly identified as right wing terrorism?

well we lost alot more people on 9/11. By your reasoning what are we to think of all muslims? You need to stop lumping everyone together in the same group. Tim McVeigh was one crazy person. Most people who share his politics do not blow up buildings and do not advocate violence to get their point across, just as most followers of mohammed do not advocate suicide attacks on America.

Tyyr wrote:Given that we're talking about the Tea Party I suppose it was inevitable that someone would Godwin's Law this thing pretty fast. I expected a little build up though rather than one person just leaping for that comparison.

Hey man, wild slander is the cornerstone of our great political system.

They're going to vote in droves compared to the younger more liberal crowd so firing them up is a great way to get votes if you're conservative. I know some tea party members, they're not that crazy in normal conversation but bring up anything political get ready for a rant about whatever hot button issue that's popular. The only solution is to nod and turn the topic to something else.

Also

Gailbraithe wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:It started well enough, a grass roots party that caught wildfire and stopped the democrats cold. It became the new buzz word and the place everybody wanted to run and kiss butt. Then thins went sour. Here are the reasons I think that happened.

The Tea Party was never a grass-roots movement. Pure astroturf, the entire movement was initially funded by the Koch brothers, who own the second largest corporation in the world. These are some of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and they are huge financiers of the libertarian movement, helped finace the anti-health care astroturfing effort, and are major funders of the right wing noise machine. Basically their goal is to destroy the government and reduce the greater mass of Americans to impoverished serfs without any legal recourse against the economic power of the elites. And if not for Fox News relentlessly promoting the Tea Party events, they would have already disappeared.

For a real grassroots movement, you need to look at the left. Detroit recently hosted a socialist national forum drew 15,000 people (to Detroit), and that was without any corporate sponsorship and without any mainstream media coverage at all. Not even MSNBC, supposedly the Fox of the left, reported the event.

The Tea Party's real problem is that it is nascent fascist movement. There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932. They are the exact same thing: Aggressive right-wing movements funded by wealthy elites, whose beliefs are primarily a grab bag of nonsense and insanity all predicated on excessive amounts of hate and fear. The Tea Party is basically a bunch of idiots and suckers who have bought into the right wing's nonsensical beliefs that a lack of constraint on economic power is somehow equatable to freedom-for-all, and that socialists and progressives are the enemy.

Which is hilarious, since its the leftists (the real leftists, the ones that aren't allowed on television and are completely ignored by the mainstream media) that have all the ideas that would get us out of our current mess, and even give the conservatives the smaller government and lower taxes they claim to crave. But if those leftist's ideas were embraced, it would ruin men like the Koch brothers, so the elites that push the right-wing agenda spend millions to rally useful idiots to their causes. Hence, tea parties.

I hate to say it, but you sound like a leftish version of the tea party. I think that point of view is paranoid in the extreme. Many people in the tea party might indeed be racist, but it isn't a publicly espoused position. Antisemitism was apparently a fundamental, though certainly not the only fundamental, philosophy from the very beginning of National Socialism in Germany. I might disagree with them, but to make a blanket statement that everyone involved is either an "idiot" or a "wealthy elite" is untrue, dismissive, and unnecessary.

Think for a moment about what you typed. This is a more condensed version of what you said. Words demarked by * are words of yours that I have replaced with words that are not specific to any one group.

The *opposition* is a nascent *totalitarian* movement.

The *opposition* is composed entirely of dupes controlled by a small, shadowy, wealthy elite. You're one or the other.

There is no difference between *the opposition* and * Nazis or communists*.

If it wasn't for a *news agency* relentlessly promoting *the opposition* would have disappeared, because there is *opposition* bias in the news.

The real * wing of a particular party or ideology* aren't allowed on television because of bias.

Does that sounds familiar from somewhere? That is exactly what you said as well.

It's hard to build a political movement without political homogeny. The tea party has no real common platform on any issue and is primarilly a rhetorical and hyperbolic response to economic hardships and liberal leadership. It's conservative crackpots and the ill educated standing up for "their rights". As a lowest common denominator collection of reactionaries it's been exploited to it's core by basically everyone trying to catch a quick buck or grab some power. It deserves it though, just as it deserves to factionalize and start disemboweling the conservative movement by pulling the rug out from under its base.

It's the logical conclusion of right wing reactionary yellow journalism when combined with an economic crisis. Murdoch must be so proud.

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

Death to the incumbents. Beware the ides of November.

It's conservative crackpots and the ill educated standing up for "their rights".

The Green Git wrote:You guys have way too much time on your hands.

Death to the incumbents. Beware the ides of November.

The Green Git wrote:You guys have way too much time on your hands.

Death to the incumbents. Beware the ides of November.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's hard to build a political movement without political homogeny. The tea party has no real common platform on any issue and is primarilly a rhetorical and hyperbolic response to economic hardships and liberal leadership. It's conservative crackpots and the ill educated standing up for "their rights". As a lowest common denominator collection of reactionaries it's been exploited to it's core by basically everyone trying to catch a quick buck or grab some power. It deserves it though, just as it deserves to factionalize and start disemboweling the conservative movement by pulling the rug out from under its base.

It's the logical conclusion of right wing reactionary yellow journalism when combined with an economic crisis. Murdoch must be so proud.

I disagree that the tea party platform is "conservative", in the purest sense.