[quote=“bubba_jr, post:17, topic:554652”]
Thirded.
I didn’t say that all the teahadis are racist, I said that some of them are. And some of them clearly are.
I was thinking it was more like “Please cut my government benefits.”
BTW, the American Conservative’s cover story this week is, “Will The Tea Parties Turn Antiwar?”
If they did, I’d probably consider them grassroots and libertarian. But I don’t think they will, and they aren’t.
Well, paleconservatism is not quite the same thing as libertarianism:
You’re saying, however, if I understand you, that the TP movement is neither paleoconservative nor libertarian, but an astroturf neoconservative movement.
I know they’re not the same, but there is considerable overlap, much more than there between, say, libertarianism and neoconservatism.
I do consider the TP to be an astroturf movement, in the service of big business, whose interests dominate the GOP agenda. But I would not say it is primarily neoconservative.
I see modern conservatism / the Republican Party as being a conglomeration of various right-wing factions, with the wealthy and corporations setting the main agenda. They will allow different “flanks” to advance at opportune times:
[ul]
[li]during the Bush administration, neoconservatism and aggressive foreign policy in the service of the military industrial complex was emphasized (and domestic deregulation)[/li][li]then, there was that uncomfortable moment when Bush said he had to “violate free market principles in order to preserve the free market system”[/li][li]now, the deficit hawks and libertarians are being pushed forward, because austerity is good for the wealthy (since they have already grabbed a huge chunk of public money)[/li][li]whenever they lack for energy, racism and religious intolerance are used to make up the enthusiasm gap[/li][/ul]
The TP does not have a coherent ideology. Sure, they’re against “big government”; they’re also against gay marriage and abortion, and supportive of the wars and Israel. These positions obviously have nothing to do with libertarianism–and in fact run counter to the positions of actual libertarians or paleoconservatives, such as Ron Paul–but the TP persists in proclaiming itself libertarian.
Here’s an interesting finding:
Not sure how to interpret this. Maybe the TPs, for all their support of free trade and capitalism, are implicitly against NAFTA?
Yep, just a bunch of racist, astroturfed redneck rubes who are bitterly clinging to what they have. You just go right on believing that.
Have a nice time at the polls, boys. You can be pleased to know that every time you see one of those tea partiers walk in to the polling place and pull the lever that will add to the destruction of the Democrat majority and the remnants of your great liberal awakening, attitudes like yours helped them get there.
And have a nice time living in an America where people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, Christine O’donnell, and other room temp. IQ’s are in charge.
Evolution is a myth, and all you need to know about foreign policy is that on a clear day you can see Russia from Alaska.
Great.
Oh yeah, and “intellectuals are public enemy #1” (Newt Gingrich)
I don’t pretend to know the minds of the Tea partyer’s But I wonder if it is like Alice’s Tea party in Through The Looking Glass!!
Correct me if I’m wrong, folks, but doesn’t this sound like “the more I’m told I’m a racist for disagreeing with him, the more I prove them right”? or “… the more I’m letting them get to me?”
I disagree with Obama on some stuff, too, but mainly because his moves are to the right of where I stand on current issues. (ESPECIALLY health care and Globalization.)
And when it’s all said and done, take a look at the exit polls with regards to race. Don’t get mad at me for calling this ahead of time - get mad at the numbers, for they will be quite telling.
All liberals have to do is wait out one core Tea Party racial demographic group. Statistical fact: that group is on the decline as far as birth rates are concerned, and outside of said group, the Tea Party has almost zero support. Again, don’t get mad at me, get mad at the demographics.
You preaching there, Sam? Or praying?
I wouldn’t say it was hijacked by astroturf groups. I would say it was started by them.
Now, if some of you tea partiers are trying to break away from that corporate influence, more power to you. I don’t mean that sarcastically, I mean it seriously, even if I do disagree politicaly.
However, there’s very strong evidence that it was started as an astroturf movement.
The Teabaggers are for everything they like, except when they don’t like it, and then they’re against it. For instance, socialized medicine is bad, except for Medicare if they get it. But then only for them, not those other people. You know who they are.
“We are all Koch.”
“Eh, don’t you mean Kosh?”
“No. Koch.”
No, three words: I. ME. MINE.
Even though I think this thread is completely off topic now, I am compelled to say that the tea partiers are not selfish; they just believe there are better ways to help people than through government (especially government handouts).
What is the more noble act? To reach into your own pocket to give to someone in need, or to reach into someone else’s pocket to give to someone in need?
I was not at all surprised to read anti-tea comments here, but the characterizations of the tea party as a group of low-IQ, selfish, racists illustrates a gross misunderstanding of what the tea party movement is about. The lack of understanding, if genuine, is encouraging to me. If, rather than a lack of understanding, you are tactically mischaracterizing the tea party, then it is still encouraging, because it means you feel threatened.
I half expected this thread to get off topic. And although some of you have attempted some reasonable argument here, I am surprised at Dopers resorting to the sophomoric name-calling.
Teabagger to man with Parkinson’s: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town. Nothing for free over here. You have to work for everything you get.”
[Other teabaggers proceed to throw money at him.]
Yep, no selfishness there.
“Get your government hands off my Medicare”
No; they are selfish, and if they aren’t hypocritical it is only because they are so incredibly stupid as to not realize they are condemning others for receiving aid while they accept it themselves.
Why should I or anyone care about “nobility”? Why should I have to carry a bunch of selfish rightwingers on my back, whose entire worldview boils down to “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine”. They aren’t advocates of “rugged individualism”; they want to take society for everything they can, enjoy its benefits, and give nothing in return. And sneer with hatred at the people they are exploiting to boot.