"Am I "a hater" for suggesting such a thing?"

Not only are you a hater, but you are also a racist, and a nazi.

At least, that's what the media and the Democratic Party would have everyone believe.

Come November, the Democrats will get what they've earned, and the media outlets that are compliant in promulgating this false narrative will continue to find its audience and influence erode.

I keep hearing things bad tea party people do and I contrast that with a report I heard early on. When the party was first forming they were having a rarely some where around here and afterwards some of the security police were interviewed. The police said it was the most respectful and civil group anywhere near that size they had worked at. One said he felt embarrassed at how many police were brought in and then were just standing around because there was nothing for them to do.

Of course any group of much size is going to have some bad apples.

I am not only racist, but I also apparently hate poor people.

And quite possibly you are also an semi-literate ignorant redneck.

Because Amy, most of these folks are the same people who are already living off the govt (aka Public) tit. They have no reason to believe otherwise because they have never actually had to take care of themselves because you and I have been doing that for them.

the thing that makes me suspect of movements like the "teaparty" is what appears to be a really short memory in terms of who is responsible for the mess we are in as a country - it's not just this party or that; the people they invite who become the "voice" of the party; the selective way they go about their rhetoric; not to mention continuing to pander to far right-wing christianity as if it is representative of it all (it is not). if the teaparty has a few bad behaving members, it'd help the credibility of the movement to disassociate themselves with the bad behavers. i don't see much of that..
i've seldom voted republican in recent years mainly because of much of the above behavior. i'm not crazy about dems either, but they by and large to not seem to be as short sighted or mean.

"I'm all for taking care of people who cannot help themselves ..."

How many of these people are there, actually? People who truly *cannot* help themselves? I don't mean someone who is unemployable because he's an asshole or lacks the discipline to show up to work.

People who truly cannot take care of themselves - to at least do SOMETHING - should be treated as the exception, and we should expect the remaining 99.5% of the population to take care of themselves. But instead we have giant government programs that auto-enroll everyone. Everyone over the age of 65 becomes a welfare queen, whether they want to or not.

Everyone over the age of 65 becomes a welfare queen, whether they want to or not.

I'm constantly entertained by the elderly who are complaining about socialized medicine as they are soaking up the advantages of Medicare. It smacks of "I got mine, now screw you all." I'd like to see them put their money where their mouth is. It sure is nice paying $2.50 for that medicine everyone else is spending a hundred bucks on, though.

One of the biggest problems the Tea Party movement has is one of PR. The media will track down the most fringe elements it can find at a rally, stick a camera in their faces and give them plenty of rope to hang themselves.

The leaders don't help matters by using "fighting language" and not clarifying that "getting what is coming to them" is votes, not bullets.

*****How many of these people are there, actually? People who truly *cannot* help themselves? I don't mean someone who is unemployable because he's an asshole or lacks the discipline to show up to work.

People who truly cannot take care of themselves - to at least do SOMETHING - should be treated as the exception, and we should expect the remaining 99.5% of the population to take care of themselves. But instead we have giant government programs that auto-enroll everyone. Everyone over the age of 65 becomes a welfare queen, whether they want to or not.*****

THIS, exactly. Most people can do SOMETHING to earn their way. They need to start. NOW.

MonicaP, yep. The bluehairs will hoot and holler about "how much they paid into it" - which is just a convenient way for them to ignore the fact that their money was being spent just as fast as they paid it in. And quite honestly they didn't pay that much into SSI or Medicare, anyway. My old fart of a neighbor, who got all his money back more than a decade ago, has just been soaking the system ever since and even had the nerve to complain that "Social Security wasn't giving them a raise this year."

But this has been coming for a long, long time. I am 40 and remember being told back when I was a teenager that I would be stuck paying into these programs my entire working life and would never get anything back. This could have been addressed decades ago, but the Q-tipped population always freaked out at any mention of raising the benefits age or privatizing the system. Even as recently as the Bush administration, when it was painfully, blatantly obvious that our entitlement liabilities were completely unfunded, they pitched the same old fit. For all that they call themselves "the Greatest Generation," they have been more than happy to sit and wait for the demographic bomb to hit. It's okay for ME to pay into it my whole life for nothing, but not for thee. And they are the wealthiest demographic, too. I wouldn't have much sympathy for the entire lot of them if the checks stopped being cut tomorrow.

thanks for the comments. would you see tyrell as more of a far lefter, much like wackos like glen beck as a far righter? i admit to falling off on the left side of most issues but get tired of the extremes getting all the airplay. what bothers me is that nobody really seems willing to tackle what doesn't work in our "helping" government programs - in other words, try to make them work better, more efficiently, which in my mind would cost a lot less and go a lot farther. i don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, i'd rather give it some cleaner water. it seems nobody wants to talk about that.

" ... nobody really seems willing to tackle what doesn't work in our "helping" government programs - in other words, try to make them work better, more efficiently, which in my mind would cost a lot less and go a lot farther."

But the critical problem with our government programs is the fact that they ARE government programs. A very good first step would be to delegate all of them to the state level.

@Amy Alkon: "it's not surprising that some people in the Tea Party movement apparently behaved badly. "
__________

It's never surprising when someone in a large group behaves badly.

However, according to the left, Barrack Obama sitting in a racists pastor's church listening to hate filled Anti American sermons for 20 years is a tangential relationship that is unfair to draw conclusions from. However, the minute one out of 100,000 tea parties yells something stupid, the entire movement is guilty by association.

Even the retarded can bag groceries and push mops. (They often do, in fact). So I'd say there are very few people who can't do anything.

Now, there are people whose circumstances make it difficult... if child care is more expensive than any jobs you could get, you're in a bit of a bind, for example...

b-rad, I've seen plenty of people try to do exactly what you're talking about, going back to the 1970s at least. It never works; there are just far too many people who have a vested interest in the status quo. Government workers in the bureaucracy have guaranteed jobs for life, so they have no motivation to do anything. Politicians on the left regard SS and welfare recipients as a locked-in voting bloc: "If you vote for the other guy, you'll stop getting your check!" Works every time. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because the right now has to regard them as a group that must be defeated politically; there is no hope of convincing any of them to re-think their voting patterns. They take the crack and they like the crack. It's a civil cold war.

And as for the VAT: most of the reason European politicians love it is because most of it is hidden from the consumer. When you buy something in a VAT country, you have no way of finding out how much total tax is actually wrapped up in the price of the product you're buying. It seems to be the attitude of the European pols (and an increasing number of American ones) that the workings of the government is none of the people's business.

"Now, there are people whose circumstances make it difficult... if child care is more expensive than any jobs you could get, you're in a bit of a bind, for example..."

Fortunately, condoms are quite cheap! ;-) But here we go again, requiring an adjustment to common perception. Many people will generally agree that there is such a thing as a car you can't afford, or a vacation you can't afford. But children, regardless of the cost, are largely viewed as an entitlement.

I won't dismiss the accusations out of hand. I wouldn't say all, or even most, of the tea partiers are racists. On the other hand, after trying in vain to discuss certain issues with certain people, I'm at a loss to understand where some of this nonsense is coming from.

I'm referring to birthers, of course, who are often part of the tea party movement.

Q. Why won't Obama show us his real birth certificate?

A. Because the COLB is self-authenticating, prima facie evidence of every statement contained thereon, and that's what the state of Hawaii gives when you ask for a Birth Certificate, and it will serve in any capacity for which you may need a birth certificate. It has all the legitimacy of a birth certificate. Plain and simple.

Q. Why did Obama spend 1.7 million dollars to hide his birth certificate.

A. The 1.7 million dollar figure was a voluntary disclosure from the Obama campaign concerning legal expenses, including things like liability and associated legal costs of running a presidential campaign. You don't know that one penny of it was spent on hiding his birth certificate and it's not even within the realm of possibility that his entire legal expenses were spent in such a way.

He wouldn't need to pay to have his birth certificate sealed. Those are sealed anyway.

Q. Obama doesn't meet the qualifications of becoming a natural born citizen because his mother didn't live in this country...his father isn't...blah, blah, blah.

A. The fourteenth Amendment implies only two ways to be a citizen of the United States: natural born and naturalized. Since Obama has never gone through a naturalization process, any court compelled to decide the case would conclude that Obama is natural born.

These seem to be pretty iron-clad arguments. But the birthers I've tried to reason with have simply forwarded the exact same arguments, not even acknowledging their claims have been disproven. Where does this stubbornness come from? If you object to Obama's policies, then object to them. But why pretend he's not a citizen when he clearly is?

Some moments I get to thinking, "Why don't they just admit they can't stand the thought of a nigger as President?"

Patrick, the birthers are not part of the tea party movement. They try to hang around, but every prominent conservative, including the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, have explicitly rejected birtherism. You can't physically stop them from showing up at a public demonstration.

@Cousin Dave: "Patrick, the birthers are not part of the tea party movement. They try to hang around, but every prominent conservative, including the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, have explicitly rejected birtherism. You can't physically stop them from showing up at a public demonstration."
____________

I second that. None other than Ann Coulter, not exactly reputed for giving anyone on the left a fair shake, has said that she does not doubt Obama is a citizen because if he wasn't it is unlikely the Clinton machine would have let it slide in the primaries.

Don't you know that if you're a tea partier you might as well put on the robes & hood.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/03/dem-rep-compares-tea-party-to-kkk-mocks-mccains-torture-video/

The more the Dhimmicrats keep spewing their hate-filled drivel, the more independents they lose. Maybe they figure they'll make it up with a ginned-up base. But when has hate ever been more motivating then hope?

@Crusader at April 5, 2010 10:20 AM

Dem rep compares tea party to KKK? That's almost funny, considering there have been several tea parties featuring black speakers (not that their race should matter).

Of course, this is the same democratic party that features Charles Rangel, who famously said of the 1994 Contract with America that "not even Hitler was talking about doing these things." The things he spoke of were term limits, tax cuts, and a balanced budget amendment...ohhhh, the bastards.

It's pretty clear to me that for the next 10 years, all we're gonna hear from Democrats is the racist-card.

>>I'm constantly entertained by the elderly who are complaining about socialized medicine as they are soaking up the advantages of Medicare.

Soaking up what advantages of Medicare?

People over 65 don't have any choice about being on Medicare, unless they are very wealthy and can afford a truly private doctor. Perhaps you don't know the law Hilary got passed in the 90's?

Any doctor who accepts one cent of Medicare money, one red cent, and takes a medicare-qualified patient for cash within a year or two, I forget, has just earned himself several years in the Federal Pen.

And, at the same time, being forced onto Medicare, means we can't get anything done that Medicare doesn't approve, not even if are willing to pay cash. They cannot accept cash. It is a Federal Crime.

There are quite a few doctors who will not take Medicare patients at all, and it is already hard enough to find a doctor.

And,there are some doctors who do not accept any insurance whatever. They do things like house calls, at $250 a visit, cash on the barrel-head. There will be a lot more under this health care plan.

We complain about the new plan, because we know from Medicare how bad it is going to be, and that is a lot worse than Medicare.

Day-am, Patrick, you, um, never mind.

Have you forgotten that early in the campaign, a member of Obama's family said she was there in Africa when he was born? Yeah, that might confuse some people who lack your highly superior liberal intelligence. So, perhaps she is mentally ill, but her statement did deserve investigation.

Obama has changed my mind on one important issue. I was always one who felt things like sex and race didn't matter for the presidency if a person was truly qualified.

I was wrong. It is apparent that our right to freedom of speech is eliminated by people like you who accuse anyone who criticizes an idiot like Obama, with racism. As a nation, all presidents must be subject to open review and open criticism. The minute morons start claiming honest criticism of a president is racist or sexist, it becomes apparent we cannot have a minority nor female president. That isn't the fault of racist people. it is the fault of morons who take any criticism of their president as sexist or racist. We simply cannot have your horse-****.

I am reminded of the time my sister accused me of being racist. There we were, in my multi-ethnic household, my best friend was also in a multi-ethnic household. Most of my personal acquaintances outside of work were from various ethnic groups.

She lived in a lily-white household in a lily-white neighborhood, married to a lily-white man. But, because I said something she didn't like, she pulled the race card. She felt highly superior because she once had a boss who was black. Do you guys not have a clue just how stupid you sound with that nonsense?

I propose a new holiday that will be known as I'll give you something to cry about day.

I went to a Tea Party event last Thurdsday evening in Omaha. There were several things I noticed:
1. When I got there a little late there was a black guy going through the crowd selling Tea Party programs. I stopped and talked to him. He was very polite and didn't seem the least bit uncomfortable in what the media has branded "racist crowds."

Four separate people gave inspiring speeches about smaller government, individual rights, less taxes and freedom in America. The first guy was black, the second guy was hispanic, the third guy white, and the fourth was a white female.

The black and Hispanic guys were selling CD's after the event that were selling like hot cakes.

There were a couple smaller 20 something white women holding up protest signs. The speaker told everyone to welcome them as this is America and they have the right to protest. They were given a thunderous round of applause. One 20 something was holding a sign saying "stop the violence."

What violence? When it was over everyone picked up after themselves so there was not any garbage left on the ground. There were approximately 2,000 people there.

The media sure has mislabeled The Tea Party movement.

he media sure has mislabeled The Tea Party movement.

It's a problem with the media in general, especially broadcast media. Everything has to be easily labeled and digestible in small chunks, like organic baby food.

Cousin Dave: Patrick, the birthers are not part of the tea party movement. They try to hang around, but every prominent conservative, including the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, have explicitly rejected birtherism. You can't physically stop them from showing up at a public demonstration.

Hey, Cousin Dave. Interesting point of view. You say (and the Tea Partiers themselves might say) that birthers are not part of the movement. Now birthers themselves might say that they are.

Now understand (Conan, if you happen to read this post, I am directing this at you as well) I'm not saying the birthers are part of the Tea Party movement, and I'm not saying they're not. However, I find it interesting that birthers say they are, but the Tea Partiers might disown them.

It just reminds me of similar situations. For instance, I say I'm a Christian. Some people would say (and have said) that my denomination isn't really Christianity, hence I am no Christian. My own thought is "When they start walking on water, raising the dead, etc., they're free to judge the issue, but not before then."

For another example, NAMBLA considers themselves part of the gay rights movement. As a gay man, I find their ideas appalling and would never in a million years support the right to have sex with a prepubescent. Just like the birthers with Tea Party demonstrations, NAMBLA shows up at some of our bigger marches, demands to be included, etc. I'm not the parade coordinator, so I don't say who gets in and who doesn't. If they want to argue for gay rights, I can't stop that, either.

But I can make it abundantly clear that I would just as soon do without their support, and regardless of the way gay rights go, I will never "return the favor" and support their agenda.

Again, I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they're not. I just find the position to be strangely familiar to me.

irlandes: Have you forgotten that early in the campaign, a member of Obama's family said she was there in Africa when he was born? Yeah, that might confuse some people who lack your highly superior liberal intelligence. So, perhaps she is mentally ill, but her statement did deserve investigation.

Irlandes, I have a high regard for Cousin Dave, so I try to keep my exchanges with him civil. Dave is an intelligent and thoughtful person and I find I've learned a great deal from posters like him and Conan. (Note, I don't always succeed in keeping the exchanges civil. I just say I try.)

I bring this up only to point out that I do not hold you in the same regard. I think you're full of shit and don't give a flying fuck what you think.

I have listened to this soi-disant recording that Phil Berg claims he has. I find that McRae's is the only voice I can actually hear clearly, especially on the supposed part where Obama's supposed grandmother. The recording is inaudible except for Ron McRae.

So in the end, I have Phil Berg's word as to what was said.

If you imagine, for one second, that we're supposed to accept the inaudible and inaudibly translated testimony of a piqued old lady nearly fifty years removed from the incident (whose identity we cannot verify, even if we could understand her) the testimony of her translator (whose credentials as a translator we don't know), over documents that the laws of this nation recognize as self-authenticating prima facie proof, plus two newspapers that published his birth announcement, then you're more fucked in the head than even I imagined.

Do you actually understand this recording? Because I sure as hell don't.

By the way, you should also realize that Phil Berg is not just a birther, but a truther as well. A truther is someone who claims that Bush administration organized the 9/11 attacks, and that we weren't actually attacked by al Qaeda at all.

Patrick, I think the way NAMBLA gloms onto the gay rights movement is similar to the way the 'birthers' have glommed onto the Tea Parties. They're like the uninvited clinger at the party, who no one wants to make eye contact with. The way you can tell is that the birthers *themselves* are the only people who say they're part of the Tea Parties. No one else agrees. And as far as that goes, I wish the abortion people on both sides of the fence would buzz off, too.

The Tea Party movement will do better if it keeps itself focused on the goal of smaller, less intrusive, and more locally-focused government. There are already plenty of other groups that support one side or the other of the abortion debate, and all those other side issues. I just don't want to see the Tea Parties turn into a big, giant Republican convention. I'm glad that almost half of the people there are Democrats or independents. I have not been to one yet, but there are having one in my city on April 15th, and I plan on going.

I've attended several Tea Party events. The Tea Party seems to consist mainly of Republicans who want plausible deniability when it comes to good old George W. And they definitely aren't in favor of limited government, except as it pertains to themselves - when it comes to everyone else, they heartily approve of vigorous and expansive government power. They love Social Security and Medicare, they love powerful law enforcement that spends a lot of time interfering with people's private lives, they love restrictive border policies, and of course lots of military intervention and unchecked executive power when it comes to "national security." It's a mistake to underestimate them, of course, but this is not a movement with any kind of intellectual consistency or value.

Pirate Jo:Patrick, I think the way NAMBLA gloms onto the gay rights movement is similar to the way the 'birthers' have glommed onto the Tea Parties. They're like the uninvited clinger at the party, who no one wants to make eye contact with. The way you can tell is that the birthers *themselves* are the only people who say they're part of the Tea Parties. No one else agrees. And as far as that goes, I wish the abortion people on both sides of the fence would buzz off, too.

Exactly. I don't really have much affiliation with the Tea Party movement, but I would accept yours and Cousin Dave's word that the Tea Partiers would just as soon the birthers form their own movement, rather than glom onto the Tea Party movement.

For my own part, I think when the gay rights movement has their next parade, and NAMBLA insists on carrying signs and marching, I wouldn't object to carrying a sign myself: GAY RIGHTS YES! NAMBLA RIGHTS NO!

CB is lying.

At this point the Birthers are as useless as an f-ing pile of shit in an operating room. So is Rosie and the 9/11 and the Lone Gunman conspiracists. I just doesn't f-ing matter anymore.

We now need to find ways to rollback the government regardless of the party.

I'm constantly entertained by the elderly who are complaining about socialized medicine as they are soaking up the advantages of Medicare. It smacks of "I got mine, now screw you all." I'd like to see them put their money where their mouth is. It sure is nice paying $2.50 for that medicine everyone else is spending a hundred bucks on, though.

I have no problem, personally, with eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, and their associated taxes. I have no problem with getting rid of tax incentives to buy health insurance, either. This health insurance racket, which separates the provider from the consumer, financially, has to end!

Social Security needs to be radically reformed or dumped, also. It is a slow-motion choo choo wreck-in-progress, with tens of trillions in unfunded liability. So is Medicare

MonicaP and Pirate Jo are correct. If we wish to support limited government, we must actually SUPPORT it.

And, at the same time, being forced onto Medicare, means we can't get anything done that Medicare doesn't approve, not even if are willing to pay cash. They cannot accept cash. It is a Federal Crime.

All the more reason to scrap it. What sane person would WANT to be forced onto that piece of crap?

Teabonics!

I've attended several Tea Party events. The Tea Party seems to consist mainly of Republicans who want plausible deniability when it comes to good old George W. And they definitely aren't in favor of limited government, except as it pertains to themselves - when it comes to everyone else, they heartily approve of vigorous and expansive government power. They love Social Security and Medicare, they love powerful law enforcement that spends a lot of time interfering with people's private lives, they love restrictive border policies, and of course lots of military intervention and unchecked executive power when it comes to "national security." It's a mistake to underestimate them, of course, but this is not a movement with any kind of intellectual consistency or value.

Posted by: CB at April 5, 2010 2:37 PM
---------------------------------------
Doesn't sound like any Tea party I or anyone I know has been to. But hey, if you don't like someone just do what CB does and make up stuff about them. You know, the same thing junior high school girls do.

One can't help but be reminded of the old Lincoln joke: How many legs does a sheep have if you call its tail a leg? Four, because calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. Similarly, saying that you believe in limited government when your actions and priorities say otherwise doesn't mean you are actually a supporter of limited government

It's interesting to hear that others who have attended Tea Party events have come away with different impressions than I have. It's entirely possible that different regional organizations have different approaches, of course, but I do find it telling that the reflexive response is to accuse me of lying rather than actually engaging with the things I said. (How junior high of you, David M.!) If you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it - I'm hardly an expert on the subject, just sharing what I've observed. And if you think I'm lying about attending the events, feel free to email me (aestheticinherency at yahoo) and I'll be happy to forward you copies of relevant emails.

CB - small problem. You've said absolutely nothing that can be "engaged" with. All you've posted is that you've been to some Tea Party events (ok, whatever, I'm sure you have), but then everything else you've written is entirely based on your assumptions. You don't cite any speeches given or even signs you saw to prove your assertions, so why should we trouble ourselves to disprove them?

You're entitled to your opinion, and we're entitled to dismiss it out of hand and ignore you, unless you have evidence to back it up. This isn't the MSM, and you're not John Lewis. We actually like to see proof.

"For my own part, I think when the gay rights movement has their next parade, and NAMBLA insists on carrying signs and marching, I wouldn't object to carrying a sign myself: GAY RIGHTS YES! NAMBLA RIGHTS NO!"

Patrick, this is one of the reasons why I've long been suspicious of activism in general as a way of effecting any positive political change, in any direction. To an extent, any public-protest movement will pretty quickly jump the shark exactly because of this type of thing: (1) Publicity-hungry nut cases show up and glom on. (2) You can't tell them to leave because it's a public space. (3) They are exactly the sort of thing that TV news looks for, so (4) they wind up getting all the publicity, and in the mind of the news consumer, they come to represent the face of the movement, even if they are only a handful of people among thousands.

I've been impressed with the extent to which the Tea Party has managed to shake things up so far. But it's still a long way between now and November.

Cousin Dave: Patrick, this is one of the reasons why I've long been suspicious of activism in general as a way of effecting any positive political change, in any direction.

I have to admire a guy that knows when to use "affect" and "effect," even in their less-frequently used mediums. Most people are content to use "effect" as the noun and "affect" as the verb. And while it's the safe way to go, it's not 100% true, as Cousin Dave's correct usage would indicate. "Affect" certainly can be a noun, and "effect" certainly can be a verb.

That aside, you raise valid reasons to be suspicious of activist causes. Because of unwelcome glommers. And I have to admit that gay rights have also served as inappropriate riders...specifically of the civil rights movement.

Fortunately, gay rights activists have been forced to stand on their own...and unfortunately now have glommers of their own.

One thing we can do about this is to do what I suggested. If they inflict their movement upon us, then our movement should include demonstrators whose purpose is to make it perfectly clear that NAMBLA is no part of the gay rights movement, and we do not support adults having sex with prepubescents. I use the generic term prepubescents because every state seems to have their own idea of what the age of consent should be. West Virginia, for instance, is sixteen (I wonder what that is in "livestock years"), while here in Florida, it's 18.

It's a mistake to underestimate them, of course, but this is not a movement with any kind of intellectual consistency or value.

Posted by: CB at April 5, 2010 2:37 PM
------------------------
Spoken like a true detached elitist who sees only what they want to.

I have to call BS on you CB as nothing you have described is close to what I saw/experienced or what I have asked friends who have been to Tea Party's have seen or experienced.

You speak like a person with a biased agenda. I call BS.

Jennifer, you might have some credibility if you issued the same challenge to people with whom you agree. And I apologize if I wasn't clear that the information I was relating comes from speeches made by TP organizers/leaders and comments from the audience - but just to be clear, it did. Unfortunately, no one seems to be interested in taking me up on reading the emails in question, but I'm happy to send them to anyone who emails me at aestheticinherency at yahoo.

David M., if you saw/experienced something different than I did, please feel free to share, though you definitely come across as a person with a biased agenda, given your obsession with insults and personal attacks rather than discussing ideas. And I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm some kind of "true detached elitist," other than the fact that I apparently disagree with you regarding the hypocrisy and intellectual content of the TP movement. Our country is in rough shape right now; we desperately need an authentic voice for limited government. But when the people agitating for that ideal are themselves in favor of vigorous and expansive government - as long as only other people are affected - that's not getting us any closer to the reforms we need.

The loudest Tea-Partier I know asked me if he could be paid under the table this past winter, ya know, so it wouldn't mess with his unemployment benefits. Unemployement he receives because he didn't want to move when his company moved, and so asked if he could be laid off instead of fired. He's also racist. So yah, I question his dedication to small government principles. He's just one guy but there aren't a lot of Tea Party people around here, so all I've got to base my judgement on is him, and the various protestors who've been photographed carrying signs suggesting that we lynch the president. That's disgusting, and I keep thinking of Amy's requirement that peaceful Muslims loudly and publically protest terrorist acts. Maybe if the Tea Party loudly and publically distanced themselves from raging bigots who have no meaningful political agenda they'd build more credibilty.

CB, I think David M thinks you're an elitist because it's abundantly clear from your excellent posts that you're intelligent.

I've attended several Tea Party events. The Tea Party seems to consist mainly of Republicans who want plausible deniability when it comes to good old George W. And they definitely aren't in favor of limited government, except as it pertains to themselves - when it comes to everyone else, they heartily approve of vigorous and expansive government power. They love Social Security and Medicare, they love powerful law enforcement that spends a lot of time interfering with people's private lives, they love restrictive border policies, and of course lots of military intervention and unchecked executive power when it comes to "national security."
Posted by: CB at April 5, 2010 2:37 PM
----------------------------------------

I find it funny that I or others I have talked to that have actually been to Tea Party's have not heard any of this. The only place I hear these things are from MSNBC/CNN I really doubt CB has ever been to a Tea Party Posted by: CB at April 5, 2010 2:37 PM

As one poster said CB is lying signed CB'S Mom.

It's interesting to hear that others who have attended Tea Party events have come away with different impressions than I have.
Posted by: CB at April 6, 2010 8:49 AM

I still doubt you have been to an actual Tea Party.I really think you are a liberal who got your talking points from television and are just repeating them here. On the smallest chance that you have been to a Tea Party "The different impressions" you may have come away with are you own pre-conceived bias that you would not give up no matter what you heard.

CB, I think David M thinks you're an elitist because it's abundantly clear from your excellent posts that you're intelligent.

Posted by: Sam at April 7, 2010 10:32 AM
---------------------------------------
No CB cannot be labeled intelligent just because he repeats what he has heard in the liberal media.

That is known as being a parrot. No intelligence is required to repeat what you heard on television.

I've been part of and we've all witnessed plenty of political movements where rudeness is kept in check. None of them rarely had support from a large political party which advocates their negative behavior. Saying that being an asshole is human nature and therefore excusable in this situation is laughable given the first point in my reply.

Why is racism an issue? Because the last Administration was completely wasteful, full of cronyism and billions of dollars given away in a no bid contract, and trillions wasted on an absolutely un needed war. The previous administration blatantly invaded our privacy.

And people were okay with it.

A black Democrat is the President and then suddenly everyone wakes up one morning and realizes that they don't like what's goin on? Considering that your average Teabagger is collecting an unemployment check or medicare and social security, but complaining about government aid and "socialism", I don't think they're smart enough to simply dislike someone based on their political party, so the issue of race is in the foreground.

Second, if race WASN'T an issue, then why the hang up on Obama's origin? "Oh, he's KENYAN. Oh, he's A SECRET MUSLIM1!1" The Right can't obsess over someone's birth rights, constantly project negative connotations with his black heritage, and freak out when someone finds their rhetoric offensive. The comment's section is full of this pointless rhetoric.

You can't have it both ways.

Government HAS to spend money. It's a fact. Defense, infrastructure. The question isn't "should we do it" but "how do we make it more efficient".

But to put it in more acidic tones, I personally won't take the teabaggers seriously until they stop using what they complain about.

Roads, education, police, fire department, unemployment, social security, national defense. All socialized institutions that we should all be thankful for. If you're not and you "hate socialism" then stop using them.