Tea Party and their effect on the elections

[Rob's House]

 

My opinion on this matter is based on what I've seen, heard and thought.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm willing to bet what you've seen and heard, regarding the Tea Baggers comes primarily from News sources and Comedy Central. By "thought" I assume you're referring to prejudices you held at the outset.

 

Most Tea Baggers, from the start, are generally middle class suburbanites that go to work, raise their kids, and subscribe to a mindset that vaguely resembles what might have once been referred to as the "American Dream" (Before lib politicians highjacked it to simply mean home-ownership to advance their "affordable housing agendas)where you make your lot in life and are free to persue that as you will.

 

Liberals assume Tea Baggers (who tend to be peaceful and reasonable people) are loud, shrill, emotionally charged fanatics with some extremist cause because, well, that's how liberal protesters roll. These are just regular people who see vast expansion of government on the horizon and want to prevent it. TEA-Taxed Enough Already. They're just saying we have enough govt and taxes and we don't need more. It's hardly an extremist position.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Rob's House

[LeviF]

That's great in theory, but people don't make decisions based entirely on economic motivations. Why do we need employment discrimination laws, for example, if purely economic reasons will do away with racism/sexism/whatever-ism?

Not to mention that the "true free market" itself is only theoretical. There's really no such thing.

[Rob's House]

Edit: To play devil's advocate, what makes these Ivy League and otherwise educated Tea Party candidates any less "elite" than the "elitist liberals" commonly demonized by the right?

Ivy League Tea Baggers don't tend to relish the smell of their own farts.

[Gene Frenkle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm willing to bet what you've seen and heard, regarding the Tea Baggers" comes primarily from News sources and Comedy Central. By "thought" I assume you're referring to prejudices you held at the outset.

 

Most Tea Baggers, from the start, are generally middle class suburbanites that go to work, raise their kids, and subscribe to a mindset that vaguely resembles what might have once been referred to as the "American Dream" (Before lib politicians highjacked it to simply mean home-ownership to advance their "affordable housing agendas)where you make your lot in life and are free to persue that as you will.

 

Liberals assume Tea Baggers (who tend to be peaceful and reasonable people) are loud, shrill, emotionally charged fanatics with some extremist cause because, well, that's how liberal protesters roll. These are just regular people who see vast expansion of government on the horizon and want to prevent it. TEA-Taxed Enough Already. They're just saying we have enough govt and taxes and we don't need more. It's hardly an extremist position.

All this over a redundant comment meant to feed into the "master dodger" thing? Are you people so in need of validation?

 

I don't think you're qualified to make assumptions about what I think or how I form my opinions.

 

IMO, the "early" Tea Party had a sizable amount of irrationally angry white folks shouting down public officials in town hall meetings, mostly because they were scared of a black man in the White House. Can I support that with absolute facts? Nope, that's just my impression of how things went down and that's why I qualify it as an opinion. It's also my opinion that they're becoming less like that as they become more relevant, and that's a good thing. You don't have to agree with or like both or either of those opinions.

 

Ivy League Tea Baggers don't tend to relish the smell of their own farts.

I appreciate the South Park reference, at least.

[Magox]

I disagree. Every time this comes up, it's all about the condescending elitists that these liberal colleges produce. Are you saying that's propaganda?

I disagree....

 

When you have a guy like Joe Klein from Time Magazine that says

 

"There is something profoundly diseased about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts. It is a society that no longer takes itself seriously."

 

This sort of attitude serves as a good example.

[Gene Frenkle]

This sort of attitude serves as a good example.

WTH is wrong with that statement? Why is education demonized by a certain section of our society? Jealousy? Ignorance? Propaganda?

 

Oh, but it's ok to be educated if you're a "Republican". Maybe it's refreshing - I can't really decide. Either way, it's good to see some candidates on the Right who don't feel the need to pander (too much) to buffoons and fundamentalists.

[Chef Jim]

All this over a redundant comment meant to feed into the "master dodger" thing? Are you people so in need of validation?

 

I don't think you're qualified to make assumptions about what I think or how I form my opinions.

 

IMO, the "early" Tea Party had a sizable amount of irrationally angry white folks shouting down public officials in town hall meetings, mostly because they were scared of a black man in the White House. Can I support that with absolute facts? Nope, that's just my impression of how things went down and that's why I qualify it as an opinion. It's also my opinion that they're becoming less like that as they become more relevant, and that's a good thing. You don't have to agree with or like both or either of those opinions.

 

 

I appreciate the South Park reference, at least.

 

So you took what you were fed at face value and based you're opinion on that. Great, good job.

[DC Tom]

WTH is wrong with that statement? Why is education demonized by a certain section of our society? Jealousy? Ignorance? Propaganda?

 

Oh, but it's ok to be educated if you're a "Republican". Maybe it's refreshing - I can't really decide. Either way, it's good to see some candidates on the Right who don't feel the need to pander (too much) to buffoons and fundamentalists.

 

It's not education, it's elitism. The pretentious "we know better than you" attitude of the current administration alienates a lot of people. That's why nincompoops like Palin become popular.

[Magox]

WTH is wrong with that statement? Why is education demonized by a certain section of our society? Jealousy? Ignorance? Propaganda?

 

Oh, but it's ok to be educated if you're a "Republican". Maybe it's refreshing - I can't really decide. Either way, it's good to see some candidates on the Right who don't feel the need to pander (too much) to buffoons and fundamentalists.

It was a condescending comment meant to demean his opposition that lies on the opposite end of the political spectrum that he espouses. If you don't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

That was a prime example of elitism.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. The TEA party was absolutely started by the reporter for CNBC saying that maybe the country needed a new Tea Party. It was not started by racists, bigots, or any of the other fairy tales people like to tell. This was purely about who followed the rules feeling screwed over by those that don't, or can't, follow the rules.

 

2. Talking about who leads the TEA party is like talking about who leads the Internet. It's simply preposterous to hold out Sarah Palin as "the leader of the TEA party". Every time you see the "leaders" of the TEA party being interviewed, there's always 4+ of them, and the first thing they say is that it has no leaders.

 

That is why these tactics:

1. pick an "enemy" from the other side, elevate that person by constantly referring to her, and only her, when talking about the opposition as a whole

2. move them to the front, and then start an all out assault that not only smears them, but smears the whole group by association

3. when that person fights back, claim that this is only evidence of how unhinged they are

4. then immediately contradict your efforts of 1+2, by saying that you would love to run against the person YOU elevated, because they are a fool

will NEVER work against the TEA party, because there is no one person to pick. Palin doesn't lead the TEA party any more than LABillz does. This is why the TEA party cannot be beaten, and will be near-impossible to marginalize. And, even if it could be betean, do you think the current crop of Democrats in power can do it? Hardly.

 

3. The liberal elitists, and elitists in general, are divided into 2 groups. One that actually believes that where they went to school, where they work, where they live automatically makes them permanently superior to others. The other wants to be in the first group, and will say/do anything to be included. Believe me, I have been part of the first group, and it disgusts me. I work with both groups all the time, and both groups are mentally weak. I don't mean stupid, I mean mentally weak. The slightest slight, the smallest threat to their "status", and they go berserk.

 

Never mind if actual physical evidence of the fact that they aren't elite is produced:

like the fact that Keith Olbermann went to the state Ag school at Cornell(called Cornell State by the Cornell trolls I know )

they will always take the bait, lose their minds, and do anything they can to prove they "belong".

 

What these tools don't seem to understand, is that ongoing performance is the only thing that makes you truly "elite".

[PTS]

Not to mention that the "true free market" itself is only theoretical. There's really no such thing.

I would venture to say everything Obama is doing is based on theoretical beliefs.

 

So what's more likely to cause racism? Hiring an unqualified person to fill some quota or allowing people and businesses to hire whomever they see fit based on the notion that the vast majority will hire the best candidate available.

 

I own my own business and if I pass up on a great prospect because he or she is not this or that when it comes to race or color, it's my loss at the end of the day and my competitors gain. It's 2010 and good people will find good jobs.

 

Obviously true free market is theoretical but I much rather be closer to that dream then whatever Obama's dream is.

[LeviF]

I would venture to say everything Obama is doing is based on theoretical beliefs.

 

So what's more likely to cause racism? Hiring an unqualified person to fill some quota or allowing people and businesses to hire whomever they see fit based on the notion that the vast majority will hire the best candidate available.

 

I own my own business and if I pass up on a great prospect because he or she is not this or that when it comes to race or color, it's my loss at the end of the day and my competitors gain. It's 2010 and good people will find good jobs.

 

Obviously true free market is theoretical but I much rather be closer to that dream then whatever Obama's dream is.

I'm not disagreeing with you, for the most part. The freer the market the better, IMO. I just hate it when people who have economic views similar to mine fall into the same trap that we often accuse our socialist counterparts of: thinking from an ivory tower (and that's what it looked like at first).

[PTS]

You read Levin's book too, huh? I just finished it...brilliant.

Actually I haven't, what's the title? Is he the guy on Sirius Patriot? I've listened to a few of his shows I think.

[PTS]

Uh.....no

While I can't go all conner on you and post links to pointless websites/articles, if you are a student of US Political History you would know that conservative politicians have done more and will continue to do more for minorities than their liberal counterparts.

 

OCinBuffalo already touched on it: There our two types of liberals, the Elitists and those that follow them.

 

The problem is the Elitists will never allow their minions to get to their level because they need these people to feel like they are suffering and then place the blame of that suffering on conservatives.

 

An abused social welfare system does exactly that. It keeps people down and makes it tough for them to live the American Dream. Unfortunately they don't understand that the system they think is in place to protect them is the real culprit of their plight.

Edited November 5, 2010 by PTS

[OCinBuffalo]

While I can't go all conner on you and post links to pointless websites/articles, if you are a student of US Political History you would know that conservative politicians have done more and will continue to do more for minorities than their liberal counterparts.

 

OCinBuffalo already touched on it: There our two types of liberals, the Elitists and those that follow them.

 

The problem is the Elitists will never allow their minions to get to their level because they need these people to feel like they are suffering and then place the blame of that suffering on conservatives.

 

An abused social welfare system does exactly that. It keeps people down and makes it tough for them to live the American Dream, and unfortunately they don't understand that the system they think is in place to protect them is the real culprit of their plight.

Reminds me of something I heard: which teachers do you remember? The ones who were hard on you, and made you tow the line, or the ones who just rubber stamped you through the system, lecturing to the back of the room as though you weren't there?

 

Some people don't seem to understand that policies that are intended to help people are fine, as long as they don't devalue the people they are trying to help, and/or treat them as if they aren't there.

 

There is nothing more uncaring, than treating whole segments of society as nothing more than animals to be fed and cared for, while self congratulating on how "humane and sensitive" you are. This is the argument of the plantation owner.

Edited November 5, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Gene Frenkle]

It's not education, it's elitism. The pretentious "we know better than you" attitude of the current administration alienates a lot of people. That's why nincompoops like Palin become popular.

It was a condescending comment meant to demean his opposition that lies on the opposite end of the political spectrum that he espouses. If you don't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

That was a prime example of elitism.

People should not be penalized for telling the truth. When liberals worry about peoples' feelings they're pu$$ys. When they say something true but unpopular like this they're elitist.

 

I'll just add, and this is not in reference to DC Tom or Magox, but retards spewing pop psychology is sooooooo boring.

[Adam]

There are elitists on both sides, there is no doubt about that. Both sides can be a bit abrasive, as they think their methods are better.

 

The people who I can't stand are the ones who feel it is more important to be right than to fix things- and they unfortunately have a lot of power on both sides of the aisle. Which is why I think groups like the tea party will be good for the country- the more power we take from the democrats and republicans- splitting their bases an many ways as we can, will only benefit the country

[Bishop Hedd]

Yup...the teabagger nuts had a massive impact. That's why you see Palin's boy in Alaska, the chicken lady in Nevada, the witch in Delaware, the psycho in NY, the wwf broad in Connecticut, the richie in California etc all soon to be holding elected office.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Bishop Hedd

[DC Tom]

People should not be penalized for telling the truth. When liberals worry about peoples' feelings they're pu$$ys. When they say something true but unpopular like this they're elitist.

 

It's not about telling the truth, it's about paternalistic attitudes such as "You won't know what's in the bill until we pass it." It should be no surprise that people interpret that as patronizing, and it pisses them off.

[Adam]

Yup...the teabagger nuts had a massive impact. That's why you see Palin's boy in Alaska, the chicken lady in Nevada, the witch in Delaware, the psycho in NY, the wwf broad in Connecticut, the richie in California etc all soon to be holding elected office.

So glad Linda McMahon lost. I despise that family.