Tea Party, thinkin about it.

A good read:


The ‘Tea Party’ Smear
Posted by David Boaz

One sign of the tea party movement’s success is that the term “tea party” is becoming an all-purpose smear term for any more-or-less right-wing person or activity that the writer doesn’t like. In fact, I think “Tea Party” is replacing “neocon” as an all-purpose word for “the people I hate.”

Take a look at this article, teased on the cover of Newsweek as “France’s Tea Party” and online as “What a Tea Party Looks Like in Europe.” When I saw the cover on the newsstand, I thought, “A tax revolt in France? Cool! And about time!” But what is the article actually about? It’s about the National Front party of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who

Is that Newsweek‘s view of the “tea party”? The article went on to explain that at 82 Le Pen is yielding party leadership to his daughter, who is “a passionate advocate of its core message: strong French nationalism, relentless Euro-skepticism, and a lot of hard-nosed talk about fighting crime and immigration.” And lest that you think that such culturally conservative and unsavory attitudes simply go hand in hand with a belief in lower taxes and smaller government, the authors point out that

That combination of nativism and welfare statism seems very different from the mission of the tea party movement. The Tea Party Patriots website, the closest thing to a central focus for tea party activists, lists their values as “Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Market.” In fact, I note that writers Tracy McNicoll, Christopher Dickey, and Barbie Nadeau never use the term “tea party” in the body of the article. So maybe we should only blame Newsweek‘s headline writers and front-page editor.

In another example, the Guardian newspaper of London wrote sensationally about “Lobbyists behind the rightwing Tea Party group in the US” arriving in London for “an event organised by the UK’s controversial Taxpayers’ Alliance.” (Why is it controversial? Apparently because it agitates for lower taxes.) These groups, it is said, have “close links to the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch” and “have lobbied . . . to maintain tax breaks for the rich” — and for everyone else, a point that author Phillip Inman inadvertently omitted. And, contrary to the article, Cato didn’t sponsor a taxpayers’ conference in London; we cosponsored the venerable European Resource Bank, a networking conference for free-market think tanks across Europe.

Inman writes, “The Cato Institute, which promotes its views on Fox News and other rightwing media, is one of the Tea Party’s main backers.” That’s sort of true, except for the point that our scholars have appeared more often on CNBC than on Fox. And that we don’t back any political or grass-roots movements, though many of our scholars have written generous — and sometimes more cautious — articles about the tea party movement.

My colleague Aaron Powell suggests that that many left-liberals, including many journalists, have a Manichean worldview that posits a fundamental conflict between corporations and government. And so if you dislike corporations, you perforce stand on the side of government. And when it’s energy corporations, like the Kochs, then anything they touch becomes The Enemy. And “Tea Party” is now, to some people, the generic name for The Enemy.

 

Very informative bugscoe, thanks.

It is regrettable that the media has stopped working for us. Of course the opposition with say that that vid was produced with Steve Forbes money.

I just know that what is going on now cannot last. We are the last of Rome's children, and we did not make any more. If we fall Western civilization will fall as well. I know there are some out there who will say, great. But from my narrow vantage point, Western Civ has given us the modern world, which I happen to like.

Seriously, fellas, ladies and lurkers. It is time to chose sides. Which America do you really want. I want this thread to reflect the best of all opinions. Happily ET, P&R is where we can do Fight Club and not be censored.

We are lucky, let's not waste it.

 

Even GOP conservative Ron Paul draws Tea Party opposition
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ronpaul_07tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bf50f3.html

Sharron Angle: Rape, Incest Part of God's Plan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/sharron-angle-opposes-abo_n_629371.html
Sharron Angle Opposed Aid To Katrina Victims
http://www.alan.com/2010/08/30/sharron-angle-opposed-aid-to-katrina-victims/

'Tea party' leader ousted in racism row - Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/18/tea-party-leader-ousted-in-racism-row/

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

Tea Party-backed Rick Scott Insists He Took 'Responsibility' For Largest Medicare Fraud In History
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/26/scott-responsibility-fraud/

Path to solvency? Something like this.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-08/ron-paul-and-barney-frank-cut-military-spending/

 

me:

Reagan Term 1: Reagan
Reagan Term 2: abstained (snookered by clever gf)
GHW Bush Term 1: GHW Bush
Clinton Term 1: abstained (angry at GHWB about economy)
Clinton Term 2: abstained (hey I was making money)
GW Bush Term 1: GWBush
GW Bush Term 2: GWBush
Obama Term 1: McCain/Palin

and

Obama Term 2: any republican with body temp 98.6

 

This where I have trouble.....

Tea Party=Right Wing.

I have read Mein Kamphf. Every Page.
I have been listening to Rush since maybe 1990.
I have joined StormFront and done the "White Pride World Wide"

I live in an area where one of the most notorious white nationalists of all time used to use public TV to spout his ideology. I watched faithfully.

I have been a member of the "Nation of Islam"
I have been a member of NAACP.

The Tea Party is either the best propagandist the world has ever known( That title in my mind goes to Adolf Hitler), or they are not about race.

They are about preventing government form owning us.

I have posted under another alias that as a GI, there will be no winning a hot war with our government. In, fact, I would be forced to take up arms against a usurper without incontrovertible evidence that they are for our best interest as Americans.

We will have to invoke the Constitution and let the people, the Courts, and the Congress reflect what we want to say.

In November, the Congress will change hands. But what does that mean, really? Will the pubs do what we want them to do?

 

What has your voting record got you?

I turned 18 in 1985 so Reagan was already in his second term. My first election was basically practice, Bush Sr. was a shoo in. But I have always watched closely. It does not matter who is in there, check your news clippings. They all say one thing and do another.

Traders are the governments greatest threat. Are you aware of that? We have to let go of partisanship if we are to survive.

But I dont know if that is possible. If the neo-liberals have their way we will be under one thumb, without the possibility of choice.

People always say, neo-cons. But did you know that Liberalism is not what it is today?

 

I really don't know if this country can be saved in its current financial shape. Whoever is in charge when we collapse, is the one that the people will want to hang. Its kind of like the way when a company is starting to go under and you see all these changes of management with the CEO, and CFO sometimes over the course of only a few months, right before the company goes belly up. The last guy in charge is the one that goes to jail. Its a political game of "tag, you're it!"

 

Today, Rush posited an interesting theory on why EVERYBODY HATES SARAH PALIN.

I think it was at this blog.

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15616.html

 

Not a choice Peil. Do you live here? I am arrogant enuf to believe that we are the light in a rather dark world. We have to stay afloat. President Obama could not be anywhere else on the planet. We are the antithesis of the Dark Ages.

If we fall the world falls back into a previous era of development.

 

The rest of these links can be addressed objectively. The Tea Party is a clear and present danger to the establishment. If they are not taken down, the overall agenda might again be slowed. We cannot have that can we?