(no subject)
27/4/10 10:09![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
oportet.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.
I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?
Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).
Or am I missing something?
I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?
Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).
Or am I missing something?
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/10 16:02 (UTC)So they haven't done that yet, right? And until they do, you see my point, right?
They're aren't wild vigilantes, their barks much louder than their bite.
They make posters, they go to the city and get permits and permission slips to have rallies. How intimidating does that sound?
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/10 16:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/4/10 16:15 (UTC)Tiller? Slepian? Yes, rightwingers who approach "debate" the way the Tea Partiers do have already shot people.
o: And until they do, you see my point, right?
No. I can't imagine how someone could defend the rhetoric used by Tea Partiers. Even if they don't graduate to shooting those guns, shutting down debate as they do and spreading the wild eyed conspiracy theories they embrace (Obama is a Commie/Musim/Kenyan) is NOT good for this country.
o: They're aren't wild vigilantes, their barks much louder than their bite.
I heard "barks" like that in the '60s south during the Civil Rights era. Churches were burned. People were beaten. Some were even killed.
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/10 16:20 (UTC)Churchs burning and people being beaten and killed aren't barks, those fall under bites.
People making posters and calling in their rants to talk radio would fall under barks.
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/10 16:28 (UTC)No. And I don't want us to get to the point where I can.
Had the Tea Party movement existed in 2008, have no doubt that Jim David Adkisson would have been an enthusiastic Tea Partier. The rhetoric of his "manifesto" is very similar to what I've seen coming from the Tea Party movement.
O: Churchs burning and people being beaten and killed aren't barks, those fall under bites.
Exactly.
o: People making posters and calling in their rants to talk radio would fall under barks.
History has shown that violence in rhetoric very often leads to violence in fact, especially when it becomes mainstreamed and validated by prominent people. The louder and more widespread the cries that liberals and Democrats are "traitors," that the President is out to deliberately destroy the country, that the right is at "war" with liberalism, the more likely it is that come crackpot is going to take this stuff literally and act on it.
(no subject)
Date: 28/4/10 04:19 (UTC)Gotcha.
(no subject)
Date: 28/4/10 16:33 (UTC)No. I've not called for Tea Partiers to be silenced. The fact that I object to something doesn't mean I want to suppress it. I object to hearing the word "nigger" too. That doesn't mean I want anybody who says or writes it as a racial slur should be legally silenced.
I am in favor of people behaving in a responsible manner on their own. The Tea Partiers are bad enough. The influential people in the Republican party, elected officials and pundits, who pander to them are worse.
If you're going to make it legal for people to bring loaded weapons to public rallies, it shouldn't be too much to ask that you not also engage in inflammatory, violent rhetoric.