9
   

Angry The Far Left Joins The Tea Party in Condemning Obama's Neo-Stalinism

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 01:59 pm
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:

That's from the same anonymous blog. Not the Christian right, not the Tea Party. What are you trying to prove by posting anonymous rants?


How is anyone to know? There is no national organization. No unifying platform or statement of principles. What makes one thing official, and the other 'anonymous rants?'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:02 pm
God, this guy is incredibly stupid. From the blog description he just posted:

Quote:
Readers are encouraged to respond with comments with the ultimate goal that we provide a grassroots means for the political parties to understand our demands as participants in the Tea Party movement. (emphasis added)


And he has the gall to sneer at other people's reading skills . . .

Loon
electronicmail
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:05 pm
@Setanta,
Participants. You wanna look up the definition on an online dictionary. "Participants" ain't the same as "official spokesmen". You're totally illiterate, not just semiliterate?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:09 pm
@electronicmail,
Well -- they sound like pretty typical teapers to me.

Do you have a different link you want me to look at?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:10 pm
@electronicmail,
Name the official spokesmen of the Tea Party, then. Give us link to the official web site of the Tea Party. I know what participant means, but it appears that you don't.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:12 pm
@Setanta,
isn't the sexy librarian ( Rolling Eyes ) the official "un-official" spokesperson
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:16 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Well -- they sound like pretty typical teapers to me.

Do you have a different link you want me to look at?

I posted one to the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll and said it's typical imho.

http://able2know.org/topic/162076-2#post-4367233
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:17 pm
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:

JPB wrote:

Well -- they sound like pretty typical teapers to me.

Do you have a different link you want me to look at?

I posted one to the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll and said it's typical imho.


So, are you admitting that there is no unified national organization or party platform?

I also wonder if you read the article associated with that graph; it makes it absolutely and totally clear that the so-called 'tea partiers' are really nothing more than Republicans.

Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 02:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But they're a faction of the Republican party -- a very right wing faction who, when you listen to them, sound an awfully lot like the wingnuts I posted on the previous page.

I think the idea/ideal attracted a lot of moderate conservatives and independents in the beginning. I don't like "business as usual" in Washington either. I'd also love to cut government spending and reduce the deficit. But, I've yet to see a single candidate being supported by the teapers that I would vote for. And, from what I can tell... their main "spokesmen" are straight out of the Christian Coalition.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 03:36 pm
@electronicmail,
This is pretty spot on, imo. And, no, I'm not a HP reader or a "liberal".

Quote:
The Tea Party's Four Major Themes

The Tea Party has four major characteristics, two of which were central to its inception, and two others which emerged as the primaries became "open season" against the government and the Tea Party attracted people who had other agendas.

1 Fiscal Responsibility: The Tea Party was born out of concerns about Federal spending, the national debt, deficit reduction, taxes, and capital infusions for banks and automobile manufacturers.... Fiscal responsibility remains a major theme - both for the Tea Party and the country as a whole - as the US will continue to face deficit, debt, spending, and tax policy choices during and beyond the current recession. These issues were the policy cornerstone of the movement, and are legitimate topics for a national debate on the priorities of government.

2. The Role of Government: Dovetailing with fiscal issues, the ideological cornerstone of the Tea Party is its belief that the scope of the Federal government should be severely reduced...The Tea Party objects to two of the government's fundamental social responsibility roles that have increased since the 1930s: providing a social safety-net, and regulating industries which have national impacts on health, safety, the environment, consumer protection, fairness, and the economy. This philosophy is also reflected in the Republicans' recently released "Pledge to America" document.

3. Anger: Anger: Many Tea Party votes were cast to protest the status quo, rejecting Republican office-holders who were not stridently opposed to TARP (even though it was crafted by a Republican president), the economic stimulus, and health care and financial industry reforms. The common denominator among Tea Party candidates who rode anger to victory was that they did not hold offices which would have saddled them to the ugly economy of the past three years, even if that resulted in nominees who are inexperienced, have shortcomings that usually inhibit electability, or hold views that are far outside of the mainstream....Tea Party candidates have grasped for positions to differentiate themselves from the mainstream, despite consequences that even they would probably abhor if their proposals were to be enacted.

4.Demonization: As the Tea Party gained traction, it became an outlet for resentments and malevolence that scorn 2010 America. The movement was hijacked by those emboldened to use it to spread anti-immigrant, racist, anti-gay, and anti-Islamic sentiments and policies. The demonization of demographic groups was certainly outside of the original scope of the Tea Party, and yet, its electoral value insulated it from rebuke by usually responsible leaders.


emphasis added. Like I said above... I too would like to see dramatic change in "business as usual" in Washington. Unfortunately, the Tea Party has been hijacked by those whose views I oppose even more than I oppose business as usual.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 03:49 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
emphasis added. Like I said above... I too would like to see dramatic change in "business as usual" in Washington. Unfortunately, the Tea Party has been hijacked by those whose views I oppose even more than I oppose business as usual.


The increased radicalization of these folks is a direct result of the language used by Conservative pundits. The HC bill in particular was referred to as 'armaggedon' and 'socialist.' They make very issue into a life-or-death, us-versus-the-demon-democrats issue.

When the base is lead to expect that, how can the politicians negotiate or compromise on anything? You can't tell your constituents that Obama is the devil, and then announce that you cut a deal with him....

These attitudes are perilous to the country, more so than anything either the normal Republicans or Democrats espouse. The point is to reduce trust in governance to the point where the country is ungovernable.

Cycloptichorn
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 09:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
They've always used fear to support their ideology.

BBB
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 09:53 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

They've always used fear to support their ideology.

BBB


True. I think it's the old Confederacy demon still rearing it's head.

From a post on Balloon Juice:

Quote:
An old demon still on the make…

by Dennis G.

Back in the 1990s there was a Denzel Washington movie—Fallen—where he plays a detective working to solve a series a murders seemingly committed by a killer he had captured and whose execution he had just recently watched.

Turns out he is chasing an old demon named Azazel who can hop from one living body to the next. In a pivotal scene the old demon starts body hoping cops in the station and sings through them the old Rolling Stones hit “Time is on My Side” just to mess with Denzel. When Denzel confronts the body hopper on the street outside the station the old demon hisses “Beware my wrath!”

The Confederacy is just like Azazel. It is an old malignant force that has always been and still is a cancer on the notion of Liberty and Justice in America. Since the Confederacy lost decisively on the battle field it has been able to jump from political movement to movement to keep its destructive force alive—and it always warns anybody who notices them to “beware their wrath”. A threat that they have made good on time and time again.

For almost a century the Confederacy had a strong home in the Democratic Party. Then came FDR and the Democratic embrace of Civil Rights. As the Confederacy lost power in the Democratic Party it started to look for a new political host. The ideology of hate wander from Dixicrats to George Wallace until Nixon and Reagan invited the old Confederate Demon to make a new home in the Republican Party.

The Confederates took the GOP up on the offer and began an effort to remake the Party in their image. It worked.

It has taken 40 years, but now the old Party of Lincoln has been fully captured (history is filled with irony). The Republican Party of 1860 no longer exists. Neither does the Republican Party of 1960, or even 1990. Only a name “Republican” and some legacy branding elements still exists. The Republican Party today is a shroud and a faint echo of its past. Now it only exists as a thinly veiled mask and a stripped off skin for the old Confederate Demon to wrap itself in as it continues to work its political mischief.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/4509712638_b45678c2b1.jpg

This election is a choice between moving forward or moving backwards. Backwards not to the policies of three years ago, or eight, or twenty or even to the 1950s. The goal is all the way back and to capture the USA in the same way that the Republican Party was captured, humiliated and destroyed. Elections have consequences. Get active like your future was on the line—because it is.


I think he's dead on, based both on my personal experience with these people and what I've read. Fear motivates them, which is then quickly turned into xenophobia and hate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 09:54 am
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I love that neo-Stalinism horseshit . . . these clowns will say anything, so long as it sounds bad.

These are leftist clowns being quoted, learn to read....

Except the leftists didn't call it "neo-Stalinism". That would be a different clown that did that. Set was referring to those clowns.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 01:54 pm
@parados,
I answered that already.

Where is all that fear and loathing coming from? The confederacy's alleged connection with dark satanic forces all linked to the Tea Party was straight out of a lunatic asylum. That's not "anger", it's more like blind murderous rage. Why?
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 01:57 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
The "they" being the dark satanic forces? How long is your "always"?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:35 pm
@electronicmail,
Quote:
Where is all that fear and loathing coming from?

That is a good question electronicmail.
Where is your fear and loathing coming from? There is no other reason for you to use the term "Neo-Stalinism" in your title.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 02:32 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Where is all that fear and loathing coming from?

That is a good question electronicmail.

Thanks, so why not answer it?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 02:34 pm
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
Where is all that fear and loathing coming from?

That is a good question electronicmail.

Thanks, so why not answer it?


He did - it's coming from you. Did you not understand that when you read the post?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 02:38 pm
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be in his toolbox . . . and i consider it reasonable to say that anyone reading this thread would come to the same conclusion. How many times has it been pointed out to him that the linked article doesn't mention either the tea party or neo-Stalinism?
 

Related Topics

The American System of Governing is Broken - Question by Moment-in-Time
The Tea Party Republicans are Revolting - Discussion by maxdancona
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
why I dislike the Tea Party. - Discussion by dyslexia
Sweet Justice For the GOP - Discussion by hawkeye10
Donald Trump: The Future President - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2023 at 12:44:36