EPTTea Party wins primary in Delaware - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html | ||
|
Rasva_Pallo
Finland126 Posts
I'm from Finland, still I have been following this thing beginning 2008 when Ron Paul run for president. He didn't win the elections (duh) but he gained lot of momentum for his message for minimum goverment. This was not mentioned much in the mainstream media. The momentum has grown ever since thanks to active people and USA economy problems. I don't live in USA so it's hard for me to say much about this subject tho I enjoy following this thing on the internet. Go to campaignforliberty.com lots of related stuff there. don't believe everything you read tho  | ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
[QUOTE]On October 20 2010 17:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: [QUOTE]On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote: Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices.[/QUOTE] In fact I'm pretty sure if the current tea party had their way, they'd cut no spending, increase tax cuts, and blow the deficit up into the stratosphere. It's the complete opposite of what they were supposed to be. Christine O'Donnell and all the others hate the idea of government spending and really want the deficit gone, but can't come up with a single way to actually reduce the spending. Fortunately all of the followers are happy to cheer along with the talking points, and don't think far enough to realize that no solutions to the problems are being offered.[/QUOTE] Totally agreed with you till you started talking about Christine )`Donnell  but all of this Tea Party crap is making me want to stop being a republican. I think out number one goal needs to get out of iraq. There`s nothing left we can do everybody is hiding in Iran. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 22 2010 01:27 Krigwin wrote: Interesting article about the Tea Party, makes for some soothing morning reading. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1. You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On October 22 2010 01:27 Krigwin wrote: Interesting article about the Tea Party, makes for some soothing morning reading. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html Wow, thank you for posting that. That was the funniest thing I have read in a while. I can't believe she actually thinks that the Constitution is a holy document. What a dumb fucking bitch xD West Virginia Senate nominee John Raese declares that the minimum wage should “absolutely” be abolished >.< That'd be like legalizing slavery... Also, if the Tea Party wants minimal federal government, doesn't that approach Communism? The ultimate goal of Communism is to get rid of the government, so it seems that the Tea Party wants to get a lot closer to that than Obama ever will. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 22 2010 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1. You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party. Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other. Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 22 2010 01:59 Krigwin wrote: Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other. Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy. It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
| ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 22 2010 02:06 xDaunt wrote: It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party. The problem with your argument is these people are the supposed Tea Party candidates. If they don't represent the Tea Party, then more Tea Party supporters should speak out against their ideas. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 22 2010 02:09 Ferrose wrote: I think that O'Donnell pretty much made herself look like an idiot in the first few paragraphs. I don't see how the article did anything. I'm not denying that O'Donnell has done stupid things. The point is that the author of the article chose to talk about those stupid things in the context of attempting to describe the tea party movement. Editorial decisions like that betray the precise objectives and biases of authors. There pretty much is no politician out there who hasn't done or said something incredibly stupid -- left or right. That they have done/said something stupid doesn't necessarily mean that they everything that they purport to represent should be discredited. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 22 2010 02:11 Adila wrote: The problem with your argument is these people are the supposed Tea Party candidates. If they don't represent the Tea Party, then more Tea Party supporters should speak out against their ideas. That's like saying that the entire Democratic party should be discredited because of some of their walking gaffe-machines, like Harry Reid or Joe Biden. You can't understand a political movement as large as the tea party movement just by looking at one candidate or politician. O'Donnell is obviously one of the weaker links in the tea party movement. No one's going to deny that. The point is that the Newsweek author decided to focus upon her in an attempt to explain the tea party movement. Hrm, I wonder how that will turn out? | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 22 2010 02:26 xDaunt wrote: That's like saying that the entire Democratic party should be discredited because of some of their walking gaffe-machines, like Harry Reid or Joe Biden. You can't understand a political movement as large as the tea party movement just by looking at one candidate or politician. O'Donnell is obviously one of the weaker links in the tea party movement. No one's going to deny that. The point is that the Newsweek author decided to focus upon her in an attempt to explain the tea party movement. Hrm, I wonder how that will turn out? So what about Palin, Miller, Angle, Bachmann, and other Tea Party supporting Congressmen that the article also mentions? What about the discussion of "originalist" ideas of the Constitution? O'Donnell is mostly used to illustrate the point that a lot of these people are cherry-picking how to interpret the Constitution instead of the "strict" interpretation they claim to have. | ||
|
cyberspace
Canada955 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 22 2010 02:06 xDaunt wrote: It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party. The opening paragraphs are all direct quotes from O'Donnell as well as press recaps of her various scandals. Are you saying direct quotation and statement of facts constitutes an "attack"? It's not the "liberal media" or her political opponent who said these things, they were direct lines from O'Donnell's speech. The rest of the article is filled with direct lines from founding fathers and various members of the Tea Party, the author of the article did not make any of that up. In fact, the only opinion part of the piece is equating the Tea Party with fundamentalism, and the author draws this (objective) comparison from direct quotes from the Tea Party as well as comparison to similar, if not identical, fundamentalist groups from the past. If you disagree, which is your right, that hardly constitutes the article as a "failure". Civil discourse cannot exist if we're going to degenerate into outright dismissal of dissenting opinions and accusations of "agendas". As an aside, I have never met a member of the Tea Party who admitted to supporting O'Donnell, or Glenn Beck, or Palin, or Bush, or anyone else like that. In fact, the media crusades of such people and their opinions are downright dismissed by such "real" Tea Party members, who claim that they do not truly represent the Tea Party, or that they have somehow hijacked the image of the Tea Party. Well, all I can say is, there must be an enormous underclass of highly opinionated phantom people in the Tea Party that are somehow managing the Tea Party's finances as well as selecting candidates for the Tea Party to support, over the objections of "real" Tea Party members. | ||
|
Obsidian
United States350 Posts
Granted, I don't follow their chaotic movement much, for all I do have some sympathies with their agenda. I have yet to see a creditable, competent, or consistent message with well founded logic, principals, or ideas. Maybe the reason why nobody 'liberal' can identify the tea party is because they have no identity. They have some rough, highly biased positions with no real answers or solutions, and they make a lot of noise proclaiming them, but they don't really say anything in spite of it all. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 22 2010 02:41 Obsidian wrote: I'm still waiting for a creditable, or hell... SANE person to emerge from the Tea Party. Granted, I don't follow their chaotic movement much, for all I do have some sympathies with their agenda. I have yet to see a creditable, competent, or consistent message with well founded logic, principals, or ideas. Maybe the reason why nobody 'liberal' can identify the tea party is because they have no identity. They have some rough, highly biased positions with no real answers or solutions, and they make a lot of noise proclaiming them, but they don't really say anything in spite of it all. I actually think Marco Rubio isn't all that bad. Then again, he doesn't identify himself as a Tea Partier even though he used them in the primaries. | ||
|
Zeridian
United States198 Posts
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009200063 not even a mention of who she ran against. | ||
| ||
