A follow up to an earlier post:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So this is what being interested in the deficit and cutting taxes looks like, eh? Seems to me more that the Tea Party is Christian Right politics with a thin Fiscal Conservative veneer:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/montana-bill-to-ban-all-local-lgbt_23.html

http://www.salon.com/news/islam/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/tennessee_islam_law_felony_bill

And can anyone answer me how this remotely is compatible with Lawrence v. Texas? I thought Tea Partiers were also about defending Law and Order and Society As It Is? To me, this is just one of many examples of how the "Tea Party" is nothing but a front for the religious politicians of the Republican Party. Oh, and as to the second article: how does making Shariah Law a felony reduce the deficit and shrink government? I thought Supply-Side was Voodoo Economics, this type of deficit reduction is even harder to understand.

But if we take Tea Partiers at their word, and they are nothing but honest and honorable people, they are always about the deficit. When it's:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters

This it's always about the deficit.

When it's advocating that President Obama is not a US citizen, it's always about the deficit, for Tea Partiers are nothing but honest and honorable people and when they say it's all about the deficit, surely we should believe such honest defenders of the US as it is, the Constitution as it was:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/26/83026/tea-party-birthers-movements-somewhat.html

http://teapartynationalism.com/the-blogbri-news-updates-and-morei/item/131-tea-party-nation-founder-declares-himself-a-birther

When it's condemning something their own children are involved as re-education camps, it's all about the deficit and reducing spending, for Tea Partiers are honorable and honest people, and they would never say anything but honest and honorable things:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmanns-son-joins-group-she-once-called-a-re-education-camp/

So yes, the Tea Party *is* all about the cutting the deficit and less spending, and somehow, in some way these brave champions of White League thuggishness freedom and justice for all will reduce the Federal budget to an entirely balanced and well-founded fiscal base, and belief that the President is not a citizen, that live ammo should be used on strikers, that Shariah law should be a felony, and eliminating all the progress (however slow and halting it's been) for LGBQTI individuals since the 1970s will make the US Budget balanced.

Oh, and it might good to remember who the father of the Tea Party's sugar daddies was:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30065386/Fred-C-Koch-Going-Off-On-A-Bircher-Rant-Newspaper-Clipping-1964

There is indeed nothing new under the Sun.

Comments

Re: FTFY

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Just like my personal aquaintences. All of that would go away tomorrow without the Koch brothers. It can't possibly be that some undetermined percentage of this has evolved a life of its own.

*edit*

Or that there wasn't any legitimate reason people might be upset given the larger movements in government action in recent history.

Re: FTFY

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's absolutely no legitimate reason people might be upset; that's clear given the fact that the GOP has had to lie about nearly every aspect of the health insurance bill and misdirect to create issues about Obama's birth, and him bowing to foreign nationals, etc, etc, etc, et fucking cetera.

And yes. A lot of the Tea Party stuff WOULD go away without the Koch brothers, because they're funding a significant percentage of it.

Re: FTFY

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Well, you're free to speculate, but I'm afraid that's all it is because you haven't given me anything I can process analytically, though I don't suppose you'd say there wasn't anything to get upset about over Bush's 8 years either that was worth protesting, would you?

Can't say that I'm a member of the Tea Party (I'm a bit too cynical on the whole process independent of party to be a supporter of anyone until they demonstrate something in action first), but I recall being pretty damned upset when Bush AND Obama entered into federal bail-outs of big business, and I'd been critical of Bush long before that. It's not an uncommon phenomenon as you might think. They were only the most overt and attention-getting examples of what has been happening mostly under the radar and in more discreet ways by both parties for time-out-of-mind.

I couldn't give two turds about whether Obama bowed or not, where he was born in the States or not (though I have no reason to doubt he was born Stateside), and all of the other stuff I have to roll my eyes at because theyr'e so damn stupid to hear. I've had conversations with actual tea party members who agree with me on these things to boot, and have no love for Republicans as a party either. So pardon me, because as weak as anecdotal evidence is, I'll take it over speculation as being just slightly more reliable, with the understanding that reality is slightly more nuanced than the vision of the world you're presenting me with.

In short: Argue Better

"And yes. A lot of the Tea Party stuff WOULD go away without the Koch brothers, because they're funding a significant percentage of it."

Solid, well researched numbers (including percentage of money coming in outside of theirs, including personal funds of those individuals like those I mentioned to their local groups), or its just more speculation. Give me something that has real backing. You're the one making positive claims.

Re: FTFY

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

He can't because none of it is true. Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement, a good portion of it is libertarian-minded and even some liberals. The Republican Party doesn't like them and is trying to figure out some way to coopt them rather than be taken over by them, and that's where he's confused. Also Dems can't seem to understand the concept of a group of people not being controlled from the top, which is weird when you think about how Dems are [incorrectly] considered to be the grassroots party.

Re: FTFY

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. Are they? (I need more education).

Re: FTFY

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

The general argument here in the states is that the Republicrat party represents the big monied interests and the Democan party represents the poor and downtrodden.

In reality it is more like the Democans run a plantation where their wise benevolent elites take care of and protect the little people who are too weak to fend for themselves while the Republicrats cater to the needs of Business and Religion.

This gives both parties the ability to run grassroots organizations, however they have been traditionally more associated with Democans because they tend to have more of a group menatlity.

Re: FTFY

[dwer.livejournal.com]

which is weird when you think about how Dems are [incorrectly] considered to be the grassroots party.

If you think that the democrats are considered to be a grassroots party, then you're incorrect, yes.

Re: FTFY

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't, but that's the stereotype that people have from many years ago, yes.

Re: FTFY

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's absolutely no legitimate reason people might be upset

If you actually believe that you are highly clueless.

Re: FTFY

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, actually, what I am is well informed about the health insurance law, and how it will help people. If there's anything wrong with the law, it's that it doesn't go far enough.