raz0rbladez909

I've been recently hearing more and more on this new movement, and now am watching some stuff on tv regarding some of the people involved including Sarah Palin. Whats the story on this? I'm not one to watch the news too much ever since celebs have become a top story but I'm wanting to find out more about this.

__________________
2004 Corvette Z06 / 1971 240z

zeitgeist

A bunch of people that are upset with the Obama administration and his spending and basically want him out of office

there are like a bajillion articles you can find on google

ronmcdon

My impression is that it's a bunch of ultra-right wing nuts,
more along the lines of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox-new supporters etc.

They do want Obama out of office, but often they don't have the best thought out reasons.

Csomme

You're an idiot^

You know nothing about it and just replies to reply. Go read something bro.

ronmcdon

No, that idiot would be you.
At least learn some grammar and address the OP's question.

ineedone

The leader is Dick Army... yes, A army of dicks leads the tea party. They wonder why people call them "tea-baggers." It is just loads of fun... get it... loads... hehehehehe

cc4usmc

I don't really follow them, although I've seen some of Beck's videos and often agree with him. I can't really comment on how far "right" they might be, but people might think they're so far "right" because we're already so far to the "left". If you think the eagle is flyin straight, you're nuts.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

TheWolf

It's basically a group of people who think the government has completely gone off course. They think it's absurd to have welfare cell phones. That most entitlement programs have gone off course and need to be reigned in. That the department of education is really the department of redundancy department. Nothing in washington, whether we're racing to the top or leaving no one behind, improves local education. State and city leaders have a better grip on it and should be able to handle it. They think that deficits are bad and debt is worse. The national debt should be eliminated by proper financial planning, not some pie in the sky dream. Balancing a budget does NOT equal success if you put off pension obligations till next year Mr. Clinton. They think unions are communists. Many think you should only have to pay taxes on the income you spend. They think that arizona should have the right to govern itself and kick out illegals. They think the answer to government's budget is to spend less not tax more. That we should either let the military off the chain in afghanistan or go home. No more of this sissy fighting. Have the grunts lead a sherman march over there killing and burning everything in their way. If your dressed like a taliban and are holding a AK then you're an enemy. No Questions. They're soldiers not cops.

Many believe the job the federal gov't is only to protect the coast and deliver the mail. Everything else can be done at a state level.

They believe that people should be responsible for themselves. That generations of welfare rats are done. No more free hand outs and mandatory drug testing. They believe in the value of family. In the sanctity of life and the right to own firearms, multiple ones. The right to defend yourselves and your family. They've pretty much had enough with all this political nonsense, politically correctness, and namby pamby BS. They don't think they "need" to wear purple in florida because some gay guy jumped off a bridge in new york.

It's time to go in and gut the system. Clean it up. Make it sustainable.

__________________
Eye on the Prize

raz0rbladez909

I can definitely see the appeal, I know I definitely need to do more research on this but it does seem like a lot of the points you bring up seem to be what I believe in. Know of any good RELIABLE resources for more info?

__________________
2004 Corvette Z06 / 1971 240z

KOUKIboy

The tea party is just a bunch of extreme conservatives AKA republicans, who are bunch of ignorant [email protected] They are not satisfied how Obama is handling the economy, healthcare, etc..But there asking for miracles here, I mean bush left this country in the shitter...Its like Bush was driving a BMW and wrapped around a pole gave the keys to Obama and told him "fix it"..Its impossible, it will take some years for the US to get out of the shitter and its deficit....

__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] http://wheelflip.com/r/Wheelwhore87

cdlong

I'd love to respond to more/all of your post, but I'll stick with the part I know. I'm not sure how much is what you support and how much is just tea party talking points.

This is a whole Loud Noises thread on its own, I'll be brief. Anyone that thinks that has either never been to Afghanistan or has no knowledge of military strategy. There's no sissy fighting going on. We're killing insurgents at a pretty decent rate. The problem is they keep making more. We keep making more when we do dumb stuff. It pisses off moderates and activates inactive Taliban supporters. A Sherman march would do nothing except kill a lot of civilians and piss off the survivors and the rest of the region.

The only limits I can think of are the limits on air strikes. Of course the tactial commanders on the ground don't like it, but it clearly fits the saying, "you may have won the battle but you lost the war." To win the war, we may need to lose a few battles.

I don't think we have any problem shooting bad guys. But if it were that cleac cut, we would have been done a long time ago.

__________________

raz0rbladez909

Can you at least come up with something to back up your opinion? I don't really care about what the Bush administration did/didn't do. It's done, it's over with now focus on right now, what has the current president accomplished/done besides given the military its lowest payraise in a long time?

__________________
2004 Corvette Z06 / 1971 240z

ineedone

Where was the teaparty when Bush was in office? Oh right, the patriot act was completely in line with the constitution! And he was totally not expanding the federal government and demolishing a surplus... right... wait? It is a bunch of people blabbering on about nothing that concerns them or understand. They vote against their own interest, they have no understanding of the constitution (insert Christine O'Donnell and company!), and apparently they all have the same issues as billionaires (the Koch Brothers, two of the richest people in the world, fund them). That is the teaparty.

TheWolf

The best thing to do is goto your local tea party meeting one night. Here we have one on the first and third monday of every month at the town hall. They usually have local business leaders come and speak about how washington policy effects them. That is the best way to get information about your local tea party movement.

__________________
Eye on the Prize

WanganRunner

Like so many other conservative movements, the underlying truths of tea philosophy will be overridden by the stupid shit their standard bearers say in public.

Vowing to spend fewer taxpayer dollars is great, I think we can all get behind that, but no one is going to vote for you (nationally) if:

-You can't demonstrate that you understand the consequences of spending cuts
-You are a witch
-You want to repeal the Civil Rights Act
-You say shit like "you betcha" in a debate

Conservatives have the messiest electoral coalition in history, made up of a bunch of marginalized groups that are really only united by anger. As a result of this messy coalition, they have a tendency to shit where they eat and then pay the price for it electorally.

If your party demographics are primarily older, like the GOP/Tea's are, you CANNOT make an electoral case for slashing entitlement spending because half of your voting base is collecting social security. This is the only kind of spending cut that really matters, and until we raise the retirement age, cut benefits, or materially raise taxes, the deficit isn't going anywhere.

The modern GOP is a case of decent ideology gone wrong via bundling. The idea of lowering spending is a great one but their various electoral compromises have bound them from implementing it in a fashion that will be effectual.

You can't tax cut your way out of a deficit. Stimulative tax cuts face a very real wall of diminishing returns, particularly at high income levels. After awhile, people just save or invest overseas and stop pumping it into the economy, and then you're just cutting taxes by borrowing and not seeing any benefit from it.

__________________
SELL ME CLEAR ZENKI CORNERS:
#/f/wanted-buy/40034...rs-junyan.html

95KA-Turbo

The tea party was started by young libertarians, not republicans. The big named republicans are only involved because they want votes. Most of the ideas behind the tea party are too conservative to be republican ideas.

People say they're 'crazy' or 'nuts' but all they're really asking for is for the Feds to stop giving and taking personal liberties and freedoms, that's not their job, they're supposed to be protecting everything outlined in the Bill of Rights.

That being said, there are certainly a group of crazies in this movement, they make for better news (which is nothing more then entertainment these days, there isn't a single bit of unbiased information out there).

__________________

Instagram - SJKnoop

WanganRunner

Those nuts are the problem.

For whatever reason, conservatives in general and libertarians in particular seem to pick up more than their fair share of crazy supporters. These people undermine the credibility of the movement and the ideology as a whole with their ridiculous statements.


Reference 2008: It doesn't matter how much more experience you have than your opponent if your running mate claims that her proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy acumen.

When you mix credible with crazy, people only see crazy.

There are crazy liberals too, but the Dems have marginalized them pretty well. They end up in Green or other fringe parties.

__________________
SELL ME CLEAR ZENKI CORNERS:
#/f/wanted-buy/40034...rs-junyan.html

ineedone

That is cute! Look the "original" Teapartyish group is the "Club for Growth" which is not run by young libertarians. I feel bad for libertarians, the leaders of your party (Ron Paul) do not even live by the morals they preach on to you (Term limits anyone?). The teaparty is a arm of the Republican party, whether you want to believe it or not. Besides, everyone knows a "young" person would have never chosen a name for their group that is so closely associated with dipping your balls on someones chin. Teabaggers was way to easy.

What freedom/liberty have you lost under Obama? I only ask because we lost a lot more freedom/liberty under Bush 2, and I only remember the libtards crying foul (Think the patriot act).

The Bill of Rights??? umm... I am pretty sure it is the constitution (not just the bill or rights) that you are suppose to protect and uphold. And I have a very strong suspicion that 90% of the teaparty has no idea what the constitution says and/or means and how it even begins to apply to the way this country works.

The question is not what in the constitution says the government can do "X" but what in the constitution says the government CANNOT do "X."


It is not that they are necessarily crazy, it is that they have no idea what they represent or even what they are saying. They certainly have come up with great slogans, but find me one that has a real solution to any of the issues, there just exist no substance.

J3123MY

Tea Party = libertarian?

But if Sarah Palin is in it... that already gives them a bad name. lol.

Corbic

The freedom not to have mandated health insurance.

Corbic

Yes cause Nancy Pelosi and Barny Frank are pillars of rational, level headed, mainstream people.

Because no one would ever consider a group of college drop outs, who spent years roaming across America with the original intent of murdering police officers and setting off bombs in public areas... to bring the "horror of Vietnam" home in hopes of changes the minds of America... would call them "radical".

Because it wasn't just 40 years ago that openly calling your self a Communist would have been grounds to send you to prison for life.

Politics is a standard plot graph, their are extremes in every camp. As a whole, the US is leftward of center, and far lefter then we ever where 200 years ago. The most Right person today would be still left, or just center of a 1800 Debate.

Europe moves up and down however, and has been left of Center for 100+ years.

Adolf Hitler, Joesph Stalin, Che, Mao, et al would be in the extreme Authoritarian Left. I would argue Obama and crew are square center in that category. Hippies would be in the Libertarian Left group, as they are all "paranoid about the man" and want "conflict free coffee" or whatever.




How Much Government vs. What that Government wants. Obama sold him self as a Left Libertarian. He would post laws and bills online before they are voted on, shut down Secrete Government operations like GitMo and have open Civil Trials, pull out of Iraqi and Afghan, stop corruption and wasteful spending.

Instead they sneak/jam through Healthcare, Spending Packages, they still do not post bills or do line by line vittos, he appoints obscure individuals to points of authority with no Congressional oversight, Gitmo, Patriot Act, et al are still in place. And emails warning of Veterans and "Right Wingers" are coming out of Homeland Security even though we have Pakistanis trying to blow up time square with their SUVs.

ineedone

Weak... whether or not if you believe healthcare is a right or a privilege, the truth is the way the system worked was the people who had healthcare would still be paying for the people without. When someone without healthcare goes into the hospital, then can not pay the bill, the people with healthcare premiums are raised.

And show me where in the constitution the government can not do healthcare. Good luck!

Corbic

Where does it say you can have healthcare?

All I know is my premiums have gone up 8% as a result of Obamacare, this is a first in 3 years. Nice.

raz0rbladez909

Ok this isn't a thread on healthcare, if you want that, make your own thread. At least try to stay on topic in off-topic, I'm not trying to make this into an Anti-Obama thread like what every other thread turns into. Ideally, some well educated posts would be more appreciated then one person bashing another thanks

__________________
2004 Corvette Z06 / 1971 240z

cdlong

The thing that bugs me is that the original tea party was all about taxation without representation. You can't make the same correlation now. Just because the guy you wanted in office didn't win doesn't mean you aren't represented.

I lean toward libertarian, as does the new tea party, but I just can't get behind some of their policies on the social side. They're not libertarian, they're conservative, just like the GOP.

__________________

ronmcdon

That's how I feel, and thus it's the reason why I'm so resentful of the said rabble.
It really gives the conservatives a bad name and appears to alienate the moderates.

The term 'libertarian' also has a bad rep too.
Seems like a lot of conservatives just like to conveniently call themselves that to distance themselves from Bush.
Look at Glenn Beck for instance, who is a self-proclaimed Libertarian.
I don't find that remotely plausible.

If you're a staunch supporter of the Democratic party,
the tea party is actually a wonderful strategic boon.

kingkilburn

That's not how the Constitution works. The Federal government is limited to only what the Constitution specifically allows. There is no interpretation to be had. That is why every thing under the sun gets thrown into inter state commerce(which is bullshit btw)

The State governments are only limited not to over step the Federal government in it's areas of authority.


Based on that the Feds can not provide or mandate healthcare while the State governments can.



Also the Pres. can appoint whoever to whatever position he/she wants and congress doesn't even have to know that a position was created.

EDIT
Current tea party = republican. Some where along the way the republicans found a new group of loonies(old group was bible thumpers) the vote for them. Unfortunately they stole and distorted the message of the Libertarians and the image of the og Tea Party to win over the new sheeple.
I'm all for total tax reform and libertarianism but I want nothing to do with

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

ineedone

Again, what in the Constitution says that the government CAN NOT do health care. The constitution is highly interpreted, that is how we get separation of church and state and a long list of other things that we now accept as constitutional (gender discrimination, civil rights, abortion, etc.). So if you can show where in the constitution the government is not allowed to do health care we can go from there. They can do interstate commerce (civil rights) they can tax (IRS) and there exist nothing to say they can not mandate

Here is some light reading on the matter

"The authors are wrong on two counts. First, an individual mandate is almost certainly the kind of economic activity that the Court would uphold under Congress's Commerce Clause authority under Raich, Lopez, and United States v. Morrison. These cases allow Congress to regulate activities that have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, and they look to the commercial nature of the activity and to the connection between the activity and interstate commerce (among other considerations). An individual mandate is almost surely commercial in nature--in requiring folks to buy health insurance, it requires a commercial exchange. Rivkin and Casey argue that the mandate is not commercial in nature, because it's triggered simply by "being an American." This may be true, but it misses the point of the regulation: It requires Americans to engage in a commercial exchange. This is the definition of commerce.

Moreover, the individual mandate is closely related to interstate commerce. The whole argument for an individual mandate is to get health care consumers to internalize their costs, and not spread them to the larger interstate economy. A health insurance mandate is almost certainly within Congress's Commerce Clause powers, whether Congress calls it an "excise tax" or something else.

Second, Rivkin and Casey misunderstand the Taxing Power. Congress can adopt an excise tax to an end that is within its other constitutional powers, as here. But even if Congress is acting outside its other articulated powers, the Court has interpreted the Taxing Power quite broadly, all but eliminating any distinction between a "penalty" and revenue-producing "tax." See United States v. Kahriger (upholding a federal tax on gambling under Congress's Taxing Power) (overturned on other grounds).

The Supreme Court may be on a path to limiting congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, the Taxing Clause, or any clause. But even so, the individual mandate all too squarely falls within the recent and settled jurisprudence."

Well, that is certainly not true.



This is true, and he/she can also delegate powers to agencies he/she creates. Same as with congress.

Here is a nice link to a Con Law professor blog http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...itutional.html

ineedone

Read my previous post.

Not sure how you missed the 119% increases in healthcare, but I would say 8% is a lot better then the average else was eating every year. Either way, this is not about healthcare...

Paying-the-Price-How-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Are-Eating-Up-Middle-Class-Incomes.aspx

Employer-Sponsored Insurance Premiums Rose 119% Over Past Decade - BusinessWeek

kingkilburn

Sorry ineedone but you are absolutely incorrect.


Separation of church and state is not a constitutional matter it is just accepted political dogma from Thomas Jefferson. All the Constitution says is that the Federal government will not sponsor or endorse one religion over another.

Gender discrimination and civil rights aren't "understood" to be constitutional issue. They clearly are and on top of that were amended into the Constitution.


Interstate commerce as it is used now is a farce. It was originally meant to prevent one state from raising tariffs on another and to regulate currency through out the union. That is it.



I am ignoring your light reading with out a source.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C