Viva Socialism!

[Kalbear]

And Scot, the board defended itself on my reply, so I'll sum up. No, it is not unreasonable to expect a person who joins a group with only a couple of ideals to actually support those ideals. It's also not unreasonable to expect that a group with one or two ideals actually supports those ideals too. The Tea Party group does neither. He supports what he thinks they should do - but they don't.

As such, he's unreasonable as anyone who supports Flat Earth.

[Mya Stone]

Stego,

Is reasonable defined as agreeing with you?

Oh Scot, I read this response as sarcasm, and thought it was funny. Now instead of laughing, I'm shaking my head.

Yay for passing health care reform. It's a start.

Why the suffering fuck is Scot nattering at us about the political beliefs of some dipshit southern Teabagger?

DG, welcome to the dawn on a new age. :lol: (Nice to see your ass finally posting in this thread. :P)

[awesome possum]

An open letter to conservatives

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some expamples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

This guy did a hell of a job of compiling links of all the hypocritical, hyperbolic and hateful actions of Republicans in congress. Really worth a read.

Perhaps the use of "Tea Party" can have more than one meaning. Given that they believe they are working against what they see as over-reaching government they chose to associate themselves with the orginal Boston Tea party because of their resistance to what they viewed as an oppressive British Government (a historically debatable position).

One key question here: was he part of this tea party movement before or after Barack Obama came into office? Because that answers your question of whether he's reasonable. Although Kal and Stego do have points in that any self-respecting and reasonable individual would have distanced themselves from the movement last summer when the vitriol first started to come out.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mya,

Oh Scot, I read this response as sarcasm, and thought it was funny. Now instead of laughing, I'm shaking my head.

There was a large amount of sarcasm in the post you quote.

[Mad Monkey]

Ser Scot's friend is a good example of the problems with trying to get something like the Tea Party movement to put out a coherent message. The only common thread that I can find is that the Tea Party protestors oppose the Obama administration. They don't all oppose government spending, they don't all oppose new taxes. Some of them believe the government should have the right to execute its prisoners, some of them believe the government should be able to tell people who they can and cannot marry, and some of them don't. Virtually anyone can claim to be a Tea Partier if they have any political beliefs at all. If Nancy Pelosi claimed to be a Tea Partier tomorrow, there is no one who can "yank" her membership card and tell her that she can't.

The truth is that the Tea Party is just a political movement, one that is being manipulated by politicians and people selling tickets to crappy junkets and other kitsch. They did to President Obama too, selling plates and mugs and underwear and T-shirts and wallets and all kinds of stuff with his face on him. Was there anyone in charge of that "movement"?

[Nymeria Sand]

Sologdin,

My friend James Stout is an eminantly reasonable person you would qualify as a "Teabagger".

Sorry to jump in (this is a fascinating discussion), but is he the same Jim Stout who's a director at Provident? You mentioned that he's in Pittsburgh, and that's the first thing that came into my head. They offer accident, life and health insurance for firefighters.

If so, he's an insurance guy, which means he has a vested interest in making sure this bill didn't get passed. Not that I'm questioning his motives or anything.

Just a quick comment on the teabaggers...is it me, or do they remind anyone else of those ultraliberal hippie anti-war protesters who spit on our soldiers coming home from Vietnam and called them "baby killers"? But I guess it's okay when one congressman shouts it at another...and the one doing the shouting is a so-called conservative.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

NS,

Sorry to jump in (this is a fascinating discussion), but is he the same Jim Stout who's a director at Provident? You mentioned that he's in Pittsburgh, and that's the first thing that came into my head. They offer accident, life and health insurance for firefighters.

If so, he's an insurance guy, which means he has a vested interest in making sure this bill didn't get passed. Not that I'm questioning his motives or anything.

Just a quick comment on the teabaggers...is it me, or do they remind anyone else of those ultraliberal hippie anti-war protesters who spit on our soldiers coming home from Vietnam and called them "baby killers"? But I guess it's okay when one congressman shouts it at another...and the one doing the shouting is a so-called conservative.

No, James is in my area (Columbia, SC) but is originally from Pittsburg.

[Nymeria Sand]

NS,

No, James is in my area (Columbia, SC) but is originally from Pittsburg.

Ah, I misread. My mistake. :)

Just one teeny tiny nitpick...It's Pittsburgh with an H. Pittsburg without the H is in California. :)

[Jaime L]

It's a perfect equivalency. You just don't like it because you have a dognamtic view that your side is lily-white, and the other side is blackest evil.

It's not though. Unless you can link me democratic congressman applauding the loudest and most disruptive of protestors.

Beyond that, since when is protesting a war and protesting a healthcare bill that requires people to purchase insurance even remotely equivalent? Why should these two things inspire the same amount of vitriol? Isn't that a little messed up objectively speaking?

[Jon Sprunk]

Probably true, unless he's replaced by another high-spending Democrat or Republican. The real key for Republicans is having a credible small-government conservative as a candidate so that small-government conservatives can have a political leader in whom to believe. And it ain't Sarah Palin....

When is the last time a credible small-government conservative was nominated by the republican party? It hasn't been in the past 30 years, so we're reaching back to the Goldwater days? Of the past six presidents, the three repubs (Reagan, Bush II, and Bush I) have added the most to the federal deficit as compared to the spending of the previous administration. The image of the fiscally conservative republican is dead and gone, a fairy tale that doesn't exist anymore (if it ever did). Instead, we have candidates who swear up and down on the campaign trail about how they are for small government and cutting spending, but when they get elected they spend, spend, spend like teenage girls at the mall with their daddies' credit cards.

[Annelise]

On the one hand, you and Annelise basically say that this is just incremental regulation and nothing for Republicans to get excited about.

? I said was there are legit ideological differences but that I think the hysteria Trisk perceived was a political tactic. You would know better than I if the rhetoric accurately reflects Republican feelings on the matter. I obviously assumed some inflation for effect.

I'm not sure about single payer, there's a few different ways to go from here it seems to me, but I obviously don't think this is the final stop of HCR, no.

[Annelise]

I thought this was a nice photo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2010/03/signed-sealed-delivered-health-reform-becomes-law.php?img=22

I think I read that Bill had been working the phones, too.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Republicans block proceedings in senate.

I´m surprised they haven´t done this earlier.

[Annelise]

Republicans block proceedings in senate.

I´m surprised they haven´t done this earlier.

I'd guess they felt they had matters in hand earlier and didn't need to.

This was Reid's reply:

Senator McCain’s promised obstruction comes to reality just a day later. "The Party of No" wouldn’t even agree to let Senate committees meet today. Ironically, as they make false claims about transparency regarding health reform, they’re shutting down a committee hearing today on transparency in government.

[Kalbear]

This is seriously bullshit. Absolute garbage. I'm truly pissed off that elected representatives of this nation are acting worse than my children are.

So the reason they're doing this - other than protest - is that they assume that they stop the functioning of the government, they can simply bide their time until they get a majority, no?

Just...argh. So maddening. The republican party, the democratic party, are NOT about the united states any more. They're not about the US doing well or people in the US doing well. They're about the party doing well. (and yes, this is completely bipartisan; I have no doubt that Democrats would do this in a similar situation). FUCK.

[Mya Stone]

Oh for the love of fuck. Party first, country second, citizens last, it seems.

I love that Maverick at age 2 acts more mature than the Senate.

[Shryke]

FYI, on the subject of the Tea Party, the RNC even supplies them with signs on the "down low": http://washingtonindependent.com/79330/rnc-blacks-out-paid-for-by-rnc-line-on-tea-party-signs

The RNC is hoping they can ride these fuckers into some sort of momentum to grab back power. Don't even pretend they aren't connected.

Also, the Tea Party have always been a bunch of bigoted morons. It's the definition of the group.

[Annelise]

The republican party, the democratic party, are NOT about the united states any more. They're not about the US doing well or people in the US doing well. They're about the party doing well.

I'm as cynical as the next guy I think, but this seems overstated. The Democrats are trying move legislation through the Senate that a lot of the Republican constituency doesn't favor, in general terms.* If (in this case Republicans) were to continue with such tactics once the issue is resolved (as McCain claims), then I agree it officially moves into tantrum territory.

*I think the hypocrisy on some of the specifics doesn't much matter so long as its passage appears to be a foregone conclusion.

[sologdin]

RNC is hoping they can ride these fuckers into some sort of momentum to grab back power. Don't even pretend they aren't connected.

they dig their own grave, then. the teabaggers are splitters; we are witnessing a schism, and the GOP's attempts to coopt the scrotal movement for its own ends will fail because the party and the movement are diametrically opposed in a number of ways.

the left should accordingly encourage the teabaggers. divide et impera, &c.

[Kalbear]

I'm as cynical as the next guy I think, but this seems overstated. The Democrats are trying move legislation through the Senate that a lot of the Republican constituency doesn't favor, in general terms.* If (in this case Republicans) were to continue with such tactics once the issue is resolved (as McCain claims), then I agree it officially moves into tantrum territory.

Some are, I think. Many are doing so because to not pass the bill when they have a dem president and majorities in both congresses would be political suicide - at least suicide for the president, and possibly for them.

Now the optimist in me believes that Obama actually does have the country's best interests at heart; he's willing to take poll hits in order to get things done. But I don't believe that of either party right now.

Sol does have a point about the teabaggers, though; they're fringe enough that they'd only serve to divide. But I could be wrong; they might just stir shit up and get more racist asshats involved in politics.