Is Michael Steele mentally challenged?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So, are there two different Tea Parties then? I've heard both what Panerd is saying and I've also heard what SackAttack has posted. So to me and one of the reasons I put 'Tea Party' on my internal ignore list, is because I couldn't figure out what the hell they are trying to accomplish and they sounded like a bunch of whiners not willing to actually do anything but complain at the local watering hole.

There is the campaign for liberty (first to use the term "tea party") and then the national Tea Party.

Let me see if I can explain the difference. (in my opinion obviously)

Most liberals would be in favor of personal freedom and helping the less fortunate. Their national party is in favor of the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, endless war in the Middle East, the war on drugs, etc

Most conservatives would be in favor of economic freedom. Their national party is the party of using taxpayer money to bail out coporations, in favor in eminant domain, in favor of enititlement programs that go against every free market pirnciple. They supported national helath care when it was John McCain's idea...

I look at the supposed national tea party the same way. A lot of people are pissed off at both political parties. So a group of Republicans along with the mass media have "taken over" this "tea party" mentality and made statements like the one that Sackattack posted above. However my opinion is that people who are pissed off at the government appear to be voting both Republicans and Democrats out of office and don't give two shits what this "national tea party" tells them to do.

So to make a long answer short, there isn't a national tea party IMO. But don't tell that to Fox News or they will stop convincing some of the sheep that voting Republican is the "cool" "Tea party" thing to do.

[panerd]

Don't know if anyone will take the time to listen as I am sure I am becoming sort of a broken record but here is a much more thought out reply to the whole Michael Steele "debate". (The whole purpose of this thread) The video is 10 mins long but only the first couple are about Steele.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So, are there two different Tea Parties then?

More like 50, and I'm probably being conservative (no pun intended) in my estimate.

The confusion comes, at least in part, because of how the media & the 'net in general have adopted the term "Tea Party" as though it's some sort of large organized entity. In reality that doesn't seem to be the case, even if there's ostensibly one "original" Tea Party, it falls far short of representing all of the various media references we see to the same.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

So to make a long answer short, there isn't a national tea party IMO.

On the other hand, there are at least four identifiable groups that might have some remote claim to being a "national tea party". Or, even if they don't have a reasonable claim to that status, they still make one.

[JPhillips]

62% of people who say they support the Tea Parties are also self identified conservative Republicans. Another 17% say they are moderate or liberal Republicans. Only 6% say they are pure independent. All this according to a recent Gallup poll.

I wouldn't say all the Tea Partiers are wingnuts, but they are much older, whiter and more conservative than the average American. The bulk of them are dissatisfied Republicans that can't accept the 2008 election results.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

79% of Tea Partiers self-identify as Republican.
They gave Dubya a 57% approval rating.

Was there a movement against all spending in general? Yes, but that was 10% of the Republican primary electorate as we saw in 2008. The truth is, the vast majority of Tea Partiers today had no problem with the tax cuts, the wars, and the massive spending until a Democrat was in office and if John McCain would've won, there simply would be no Tea Party aside from a small subset of the electorate that can't win a single primary.

I know that Democrats don't believe this but tax cuts technically are money coming back to the taxpayers and not going to the machine in Washington. So while you may not agree with idea you seem very illogical if you claim that would run counter to cutting government spending. (I have heard this many times so it isn't neccesarly aimed at you)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

More like 50, and I'm probably being conservative (no pun intended) in my estimate.

The confusion comes, at least in part, because of how the media & the 'net in general have adopted the term "Tea Party" as though it's some sort of large organized entity. In reality that doesn't seem to be the case, even if there's ostensibly one "original" Tea Party, it falls far short of representing all of the various media references we see to the same.

I'd also argue that it's due to having nothing but opposition. There are plenty of folks opposed to Obama, which is about all that unites the Tea Partiers. Like I said, if they actually had to create a platform the whole movement would fall apart. Once they specify how the budget will be balanced it's over.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd also argue that it's due to having nothing but opposition. There are plenty of folks opposed to Obama, which is about all that unites the Tea Partiers. Like I said, if they actually had to create a platform the whole movement would fall apart. Once they specify how the budget will be balanced the whole thing will fall apart.

LOL. Maybe they will steal one from the 2010 Democrats playbook...

House Majority Leader: No Budget This Year « The Speakers Lobby

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

LOL. Maybe they will steal one from the 2010 Democrats playbook...

House Majority Leader: No Budget This Year « The Speakers Lobby

No. That's an example of not getting shit done. Shit that isn't getting done because they're cowards, but it has nothing to do with not having a platform.

The Tea Party doesn't have any clear, stated agenda.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes. The Ron Paul tea party movement is what I am talking about.

I really have a hard time equating those Ron Paul followers with the current "tea party" movement. During the Republican primary debates, Ron Paul sounded like he showed up at the wrong venue. The people supporting Paul pre-election were NOT excited about McCain.

I'm not saying Ron Paul would succeed as president. I'm just trying to get a handle on that movement that surrounded him.

It's so easy to dismiss anyone who has an issue with the current government and its corporate overlords as "tea partiers" who don't understand what's going on beyond a "smaller government" mantra. "Small government" is a really misleading term when it comes to what people are pissed off about. (Deficits, corruption, corporate ownership of government) (And not deficits in the sense of simply "too much spending", but just in the sense that we clearly cannot afford our current government)

The tea party movement is a cartoon, a place for Republicans to be pissed about losing the election. I believe, or want to believe, that there is a more moderate, more educated, less political movement simmering that will only grow as this current administration labors on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd also argue that it's due to having nothing but opposition.

Sometimes a common enemy is all that is required for a functional coalition.
See WW II for an example.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

There is the campaign for liberty (first to use the term "tea party") and then the national Tea Party.

Let me see if I can explain the difference. (in my opinion obviously)

Most liberals would be in favor of personal freedom and helping the less fortunate. Their national party is in favor of the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, endless war in the Middle East, the war on drugs, etc

Are you sure about that? That sounds exactly what conservatives support. Maybe I'm missing something, but other than being in favor of personal freedom and helping the less fortunate, I'm hard pressed to think of any liberals that are in favor of the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, war, war on drugs. Unless you left out 'NOT' then, yes that makes sense.

Most conservatives would be in favor of economic freedom. Their national party is the party of using taxpayer money to bail out coporations, in favor in eminant domain, in favor of enititlement programs that go against every free market pirnciple. They supported national helath care when it was John McCain's idea...

I look at the supposed national tea party the same way. A lot of people are pissed off at both political parties. So a group of Republicans along with the mass media have "taken over" this "tea party" mentality and made statements like the one that Sackattack posted above. However my opinion is that people who are pissed off at the government appear to be voting both Republicans and Democrats out of office and don't give two shits what this "national tea party" tells them to do.

So to make a long answer short, there isn't a national tea party IMO. But don't tell that to Fox News or they will stop convincing some of the sheep that voting Republican is the "cool" "Tea party" thing to do.

Ok, so there isn't an actual certifiable Tea Party? I can deal with that.

I just don't get any of what they are about except for being pissed about the corporate bail outs. All these problems have been around for years and years and now they are voicing their dissatisfaction? Where were they when the airlines were getting bailed out, for example?

I guess the squeaky wheel gets the attention in this case, regardless of the size or how well it is organized.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

More like 50, and I'm probably being conservative (no pun intended) in my estimate.

The confusion comes, at least in part, because of how the media & the 'net in general have adopted the term "Tea Party" as though it's some sort of large organized entity. In reality that doesn't seem to be the case, even if there's ostensibly one "original" Tea Party, it falls far short of representing all of the various media references we see to the same.

50? Well, that helps clear things up!

And yes, the media is not helping in trying to distinguish the various factions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And yes, the media is not helping in trying to distinguish the various factions.

It really isn't in their best interest to, they're easier dealt with by using a catch-all phrase. And since not even the groups themselves have managed to do much in terms of staking a full claim to the brand, I'm not sure the media could sort them all out anyway.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Are you sure about that? That sounds exactly what conservatives support. Maybe I'm missing something, but other than being in favor of personal freedom and helping the less fortunate, I'm hard pressed to think of any liberals that are in favor of the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, war, war on drugs. Unless you left out 'NOT' then, yes that makes sense.

The Patriot Act was always a popular target during the Bush years, even though many Democrats voted for it, and nobody seems to complain about it anymore.

And weren't liberals generally in favor of the corporate bail-outs? I know I had a lot of arguments with a bunch of them here. And certainly, I heard for 8 years how Afghanistan was the "right war", (I personally never understood that distinction, Iraq and Afghanistan seem like the same war), and now it's continuing under a Democratic administration.

And the party supports personal freedom in the sense of sex, yes, but not in many other ways.

"Helping the less fortunate" is such a loaded term too - we can't evaluate that by voting records, we can only evaluate that based what someone does individually to help the less fortunate (supporting higher taxes doesn't count, unless maybe if it's a specific tax for some charitable cause, and the person supporting it will personally be burdened by the tax).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Are you sure about that? That sounds exactly what conservatives support. Maybe I'm missing something, but other than being in favor of personal freedom and helping the less fortunate, I'm hard pressed to think of any liberals that are in favor of the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, war, war on drugs. Unless you left out 'NOT' then, yes that makes sense.

Well, if liberals are against the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, war, and the war on drugs, their support for Obama seems a little misguided.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, if liberals are against the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, war, and the war on drugs, their support for Obama seems a little misguided.

An enthusiastic +1.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

And by best interest, I assume you mean "they're too lazy too."

Eh, not exactly.

The average American comprehends things they hear at around a fifth grade reading level (and that may be giving too much credit, most printed news is written to grade 5, I was taught to write broadcast with a lower target in mind). Trying to distinguish between the various groups, draw the distinctions between their various positions & priorities, and otherwise get into the nuances of Tea Party (capital letters) versus (lowercase) tea party styled groups would be largely a wasted effort, worth neither the time nor the energy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It really isn't in their best interest to, they're easier dealt with by using a catch-all phrase. And since not even the groups themselves have managed to do much in terms of staking a full claim to the brand, I'm not sure the media could sort them all out anyway.

It is definitely simpler to group them all together and attach the grievance du jour to them. I guess that's what gets hits on the various media web sites to pay the bills.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Our choice was between a right-wing Republican (McCain) and an Eisenhower Republican (Obama). We did the best we could.

Sure, but outside of a small group (and DailyKos and the like are indeed a small group) no one really cares.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

How about actual stats? Ya' know, where extreme poverty among the elderly was almost eliminated by the passage of Social Security? Or how poverty dropped by half during the first two years of the Great Society before LBJ f'd up things in Vietnam, allowing Nixon to smother it in the cradle. Or how screwed up things were from oh, the beginning of time to the Great Depression and how things have generally got better since then. I think conservatives forgot that we tried the whole 'depend on private charity to help the less fortunate' for about 5,000 years. It didn't work.

I wasn't even arguing poverty reduction. The government clearly has a role, a huge one. I'm just saying getting rich people to put more money in doesn't make you a good person, even though that's what the Democratic party tries to sell you. Your party affiliation doesn't equal an actual desire to "help the less fortunate" It just expresses a political opinion about how to do so (and you quote the glory days of effective government help for the poor - not sure we have that level of effectiveness today, though we certainly have the spending that should produce it).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Our choice was between a right-wing Republican (McCain) and an Eisenhower Republican (Obama). We did the best we could.

That's easy to say now, as the administration proves itself to be less and less effective. It was a different story during the campaign, and around the inauguration.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

R

No, we just have another definition of freedom. For example, I really don't think a person with no access to health care or a decent education really has much freedom when you really look at it. But yes, we believe total freedom when it comes to sex will lead to less trouble than complete freedom when it comes to automatic weapons. We're wacky liberals like that.

I didn't say anything about wacky, I just think "personal freedom" really can't be considered part of the Democratic platform when you're for some freedoms, but against others (just like Republicans).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

We need x money to fund programs that everybody in this thread aside from probably Jon and panerd believes should exist. Everybody agrees these programs help the less fortunate. On a purely utilitarian level, we can either get the funds so it disproportionately hurts the poor more (who we're supposedly helping with these programs) or from the rich. I would say you help the less fourtunate by taking the needed funds from those with more of a cushion instead of taking money from the poor...to help the poor.

Different argument.

All I'm saying is that your specific opinion about how to help the poor doesn't allow you, or your party, to wave the banner of "caring about the less fortunate."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I would say you help the less fourtunate by taking the needed funds from those with more of a cushion instead of taking money from the poor...to help the poor.

And I would say that we're preparing fight you to the last man & the last breath to stop the taking of an unacceptable amount of funds at gunpoint.

It's all good

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

If you can't understand the difference between Afghanistan (War to destroy Al-Quaeda, find Osama, etc.) and Iraq (War to topple a dictator with no connections to Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, or even any real terrorism directed at Americans), I don't know what to tell you. As for Afghanistan, there were many Democrats who though the best thing to do was instead of doing a surge that we focus on special ops and drone attacks. One of those Democrats is Vice-President now. Unfortunately, Obama listened to McChrystal over him.

Maybe Afghanistan wasn't the same war in November 2001, but it's the same war now, and has been for a while.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Nobody aside from anarchists is for total freedom of the individual. But no politcian is going to say that, so both parties are going to say they're for personal freedom.

Fair enough, so "personal freedom" is just advertising fluff (that's the place I would put "we care about people".) I think that was the point I was trying to make.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You're side lost the moment the first Grandparent got a Social Security check.

Last time I checked, there's a lot more money being taken than just SS.

Hell, last year was the lowest taxes as percentage of GDP since the 30's (which makes the anti-tax REVOLT~! even more sadly humorous)

Doesn't mean it's low enough.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

The Patriot Act was always a popular target during the Bush years, even though many Democrats voted for it, and nobody seems to complain about it anymore.

And weren't liberals generally in favor of the corporate bail-outs? I know I had a lot of arguments with a bunch of them here. And certainly, I heard for 8 years how Afghanistan was the "right war", (I personally never understood that distinction, Iraq and Afghanistan seem like the same war), and now it's continuing under a Democratic administration.

And the party supports personal freedom in the sense of sex, yes, but not in many other ways.

"Helping the less fortunate" is such a loaded term too - we can't evaluate that by voting records, we can only evaluate that based what someone does individually to help the less fortunate (supporting higher taxes doesn't count, unless maybe if it's a specific tax for some charitable cause, and the person supporting it will personally be burdened by the tax).

Ah ok. I see that yes and I can't argue with you on that. I think I may have over generalized it and I was making the distinction of liberals in general and not specifically the democratic party.

I honestly don't think the democratic party is an accurate representation of liberals in general. Kinda like saying republicans only represent bible thumping conservatives. I think if people really saw how much the two parties are similar (other than the fringe stuff), they would have a hard time deciding on who to vote for. Well, there's always going to be the 'current hot button' item they are going to mud sling about, but, both parties are very similar in my opinion.

Representatives from both parties will flop on an issue in an instant as soon as they find out they can get more votes come election time and the Patriot Act and the war going on are two good examples of that. I see Iraq and Afghanistan as the same war too.

But, going back to liberals in general...most of the liberals that I know and blogs that I read, do not support corporate welfare, the war, the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, etc...and they don't hesitate to slam Obama for pretty much keeping the status quo from the last administration.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Ah ok. I see that yes and I can't argue with you on that. I think I may have over generalized it and I was making the distinction of liberals in general and not specifically the democratic party.

I honestly don't think the democratic party is an accurate representation of liberals in general. Kinda like saying republicans only represent bible thumping conservatives. I think if people really saw how much the two parties are similar (other than the fringe stuff), they would have a hard time deciding on who to vote for. Well, there's always going to be the 'current hot button' item they are going to mud sling about, but, both parties are very similar in my opinion.

Representatives from both parties will flop on an issue in an instant as soon as they find out they can get more votes come election time and the Patriot Act and the war going on are two good examples of that. I see Iraq and Afghanistan as the same war too.

But, going back to liberals in general...most of the liberals that I know and blogs that I read, do not support corporate welfare, the war, the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, etc...and they don't hesitate to slam Obama for pretty much keeping the status quo from the last administration.

Or what I said in the orginal post that you obviously didn't read...

"Most liberals would be in favor of personal freedom and helping the less fortunate. Their national party is in favor of the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, endless war in the Middle East, the war on drugs, etc

Most conservatives would be in favor of economic freedom. Their national party is the party of using taxpayer money to bail out coporations, in favor in eminant domain, in favor of enititlement programs that go against every free market pirnciple. They supported national helath care when it was John McCain's idea...

I look at the supposed national tea party the same way. A lot of people are pissed off at both political parties. So a group of Republicans along with the mass media have "taken over" this "tea party" mentality and made statements like the one that Sackattack posted above. However my opinion is that people who are pissed off at the government appear to be voting both Republicans and Democrats out of office and don't give two shits what this "national tea party" tells them to do.

So to make a long answer short, there isn't a national tea party IMO. But don't tell that to Fox News or they will stop convincing some of the sheep that voting Republican is the "cool" "Tea party" thing to do."

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The two parties are 95% percent similar and just keep everyone fighting over the leftover five.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

[RainMaker]

Ron Paul started the tea party stuff during his primary run. That or his followers did when they did those money bombs. It's completely different from the tea party stuff that's out there now.

Ron Paul's tea party was a libertarian platform while the new tea party stuff is just we don't like Democrats.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Or what I said in the orginal post that you obviously didn't read...

Did not mean to offend you by missing those 3 words, "Their national party", out of the entire amount of words that you typed in your posting, but I did read your post.

But, while we are being pedantic, in my response to you, I asked if you had forgotten to put a 'Not' in there somewhere in regards to what you said about liberals. Molson kindly cleared that up for me.

I actually don't disagree with you on most of what your original post said, now that I've re-read it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Did not mean to offend you by missing those 3 words, "Their national party", out of the entire amount of words that you typed in your posting, but I did read your post.

But, while we are being pedantic, in my response to you, I asked if you had forgotten to put a 'Not' in there somewhere in regards to what you said about liberals. Molson kindly cleared that up for me.

I actually don't disagree with you on most of what your original post said, now that I've re-read it.

No worries. When I reread a lot of what I post I actually come off as way more abrasive than I intend to be. Sorry if that is the case here.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

No worries. When I reread a lot of what I post I actually come off as way more abrasive than I intend to be. Sorry if that is the case here.

It's totally cool. I didn't take it as abrasive to be honest.

I do have a tendency to read fast and that leads to me missing words sometimes.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So to me and one of the reasons I put 'Tea Party' on my internal ignore list, is because I couldn't figure out what the hell they are trying to accomplish and they sounded like a bunch of whiners not willing to actually do anything but complain at the local watering hole.

Trust your initial instincts. By and large, someone who identifies themselves as being with the Tea Party are the conservative answer to the liberal conspiracy theorists that blame conservatives for everything from the Iraq war to artificial turf.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

More like 50, and I'm probably being conservative (no pun intended) in my estimate.

The confusion comes, at least in part, because of how the media & the 'net in general have adopted the term "Tea Party" as though it's some sort of large organized entity. In reality that doesn't seem to be the case, even if there's ostensibly one "original" Tea Party, it falls far short of representing all of the various media references we see to the same.

Exactly. There isn't a national Tea Party. There are some groups trying to start one but there are a lot of Tea Party people who hate the idea of a national party and think the Tea Party is all about the grass roots.

I think the conservative movement has finally found its hippies -- a bunch of people fighting against The Man and blaming everyone else for the plight of the world.

Among the group I used to work with, the Tea Party is a popular movement. However, median member is someone who has (or had) their own business, made absolutely horrific business decisions that were of their own making and now want a bunch of handouts, such as the government bailing out their business, giving them tax credits or making banks give them cheap loans despite their credit risk.

YMMV. For all I know aside from the nut jobs who think Obama is communist Muslim spy, maybe other Tea Party groups are more normal. But I doubt it based on the national coverage I've seen.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

YMMV. For all I know aside from the nut jobs who think Obama is communist Muslim spy, maybe other Tea Party groups are more normal. But I doubt it based on the national coverage I've seen.

I don't know how closely held a belief "communist Muslim spy" is among those who identify with the general aims of the Tea Party, but said individuals do seem to be at least more willing to believe those labels than otherwise.

I have family members, people who otherwise are reasonably intelligent and have never previously shown signs of mania, who berate me because they've "done the research" and insist I can't see what's right in front of me, that he's clearly a socialist Muslim who wants to destroy America.

I can't seem to get them to grasp the concept of the echo chamber. If your research is done from sources that agree with what your preconceived notions are...