I don't care what party it is, there are fools and crackpots in all of them. They are not true makeup of the party.

 

So, what about the Tea Party brings so much hatred and smugness from so many?

 

I agree there are crackpots in both. Think I said so.

 

Again, it's not hatred for the Tea Party that I have. But you've never said anything about the LEADER of a local group of the Tea Party and his smug statements.

The Tea Party has been around for years. They just changed the name from the KKK.

 

Wow, I hope you aren't serious.

The Tea Party has been around for years. They just changed the name from the KKK.

There you have it. This is exactly what I'm talking about, folks. People dare question Obama's policies and they're labeled KKK members. :ohbrother:

I said it time and again on here, people on the left simply aren't ready for a black president.

Thanks for making my point for me, CoachBuckett.

 

BTW, Coach, just how many democrats have been members of the KKK over the years? :sssh:

I agree there are crackpots in both. Think I said so.

 

Again, it's not hatred for the Tea Party that I have. But you've never said anything about the LEADER of a local group of the Tea Party and his smug statements.

I'm talking the Tea Party as a whole though, Hatz. I can certainly understand your problem with what you described and am in agreement. :thumb:

Wow, I hope you aren't serious.

I see nothing to indicate otherwise.... :idunno:

I have no contempt for anyone exercising their freedom of expression. I wish more people would pay attention and be motivated. I also find skepticism toward government to be healthy.

 

However, I don’t take their movement seriously. They are overwhelmingly conservatives and supporters of Republicans, yet they have waited until the inauguration of a Democrat to find it within themselves to be concerned with spending and the expansion of government despite the astonishing levels of both in the previous administration. That is a partisan stance, not a principled one, an important distinction in that it makes their complaints and ideological fervor a bit disingenuous. They are also, as a group, old enough to have lived through the Clinton administration’s modest tax levels, and likely pre-Reagan administrations, where they saw much steeper rates of taxation. Additionally, Clinton’s healthcare proposal was far and away more ambitious than the recently passed law. Bush’s expansion of Medicare was as expensive and unfunded. Yet, there was no “Tea Party” movement in any of those instances, either against Clinton era tax levels - which, if the Bush tax cuts expire, will again be the tax burden they fear as apocalyptic– or against either healthcare proposals before this one.

 

Paradoxically, Tea Partiers are incensed that a percentage of the population receives more in income tax credits than they paid in income taxes while simultaneously demanding the tax burden to be lessened. They also want the deficit reduced and spending cut, but they neither want taxes to pay for deficit reduction nor do they want any tampering with Medicare, Social Security, or defense spending. All of this is to ask, why all the fervor now? Where was it over the last twenty years? What evidence is there that this movement is anything but arbitrary? Instead, we are presented with the fanatical notion that this president represents such a radical departure from the status quo that the fabric of democracy is being torn apart before our eyes. This is nonsense. In light of the previous comparisons to other presidents, it is unsubstantial. It detracts from the legitimate concerns the movement may propound, and makes their reason for existence a specific opposition to all things Obama, not a principled stand against deficit spending.

 

As to the matter of this president’s race: it is impossible to say to what level, if any, his race is a factor in this opposition to him. Of course, there are overt racists out there, and some of them have carried signs or shouted epithets during Tea Party rallies. These people should be loudly condemned, but they are not representative. I think the poster who said that they are all members of the KKK is lowering the level of discourse on this forum, or at least perpetuating its already low level. However, the question of his race and what role it plays in his opposition is legitimate, if not provable. A significant, and loud, portion of his opposition in the election framed him as a closet Muslim, as anti-American, a possible terrorist. Indeed many do not believe he was born here despite the presentation of his birth certificate. Obama was presented by these people as a mysterious, radical figure who would willingly destroy the country. I don’t think this is sellable, nor would it have been taken up by so many people if he were white with a traditional Anglo-American name. Now we have a subsequent movement in opposition to him, furious about things that have been done since they have been alive, but only now have they taken to the streets. The question is going to be posed.

 

Your point is . . . to honestly believe that race does not play some role in opposition to Obama is intellectually dishonest. One of my former step fathers, a staunch Kentucky and Frankfort DEMOCRAT would never have voted for Obama because of his race. So there is SOME racism in the opposition to him. It has to be discussed.

I believe race is a part of the equation. I also believe more voted for him than against him, based on race.

Your point is . . . to honestly believe that race does not play some role in opposition to Obama is intellectually dishonest. One of my former step fathers, a staunch Kentucky and Frankfort DEMOCRAT would never have voted for Obama because of his race. So there is SOME racism in the opposition to him. It has to be discussed.

 

As long as you discuss the racism that got him elected then I agree.

I was in Washington last week. I spoke briefly with a family that was walking to the Mall to join the Tax Day gathering. They carried an traditional American Flag and the Don't Tread on Me flag. They did not carry the Stars and Bars. We drive by the gathering on the Mall. Lots of Stars and Stripes and lots of Don't Tread on Me flags. No Stars and Bars.

 

Those that believe that racism is part of the Tea Party core are greatly misguided.

 

 

 

 

I have no contempt for anyone exercising their freedom of expression. I wish more people would pay attention and be motivated. I also find skepticism toward government to be healthy.

 

However, I don’t take their movement seriously. They are overwhelmingly conservatives and supporters of Republicans, yet they have waited until the inauguration of a Democrat to find it within themselves to be concerned with spending and the expansion of government despite the astonishing levels of both in the previous administration. That is a partisan stance, not a principled one, an important distinction in that it makes their complaints and ideological fervor a bit disingenuous. They are also, as a group, old enough to have lived through the Clinton administration’s modest tax levels, and likely pre-Reagan administrations, where they saw much steeper rates of taxation. Additionally, Clinton’s healthcare proposal was far and away more ambitious than the recently passed law. Bush’s expansion of Medicare was as expensive and unfunded. Yet, there was no “Tea Party” movement in any of those instances, either against Clinton era tax levels - which, if the Bush tax cuts expire, will again be the tax burden they fear as apocalyptic– or against either healthcare proposals before this one.

 

Paradoxically, Tea Partiers are incensed that a percentage of the population receives more in income tax credits than they paid in income taxes while simultaneously demanding the tax burden to be lessened. They also want the deficit reduced and spending cut, but they neither want taxes to pay for deficit reduction nor do they want any tampering with Medicare, Social Security, or defense spending. All of this is to ask, why all the fervor now? Where was it over the last twenty years? What evidence is there that this movement is anything but arbitrary? Instead, we are presented with the fanatical notion that this president represents such a radical departure from the status quo that the fabric of democracy is being torn apart before our eyes. This is nonsense. In light of the previous comparisons to other presidents, it is unsubstantial. It detracts from the legitimate concerns the movement may propound, and makes their reason for existence a specific opposition to all things Obama, not a principled stand against deficit spending.

 

As to the matter of this president’s race: it is impossible to say to what level, if any, his race is a factor in this opposition to him. Of course, there are overt racists out there, and some of them have carried signs or shouted epithets during Tea Party rallies. These people should be loudly condemned, but they are not representative. I think the poster who said that they are all members of the KKK is lowering the level of discourse on this forum, or at least perpetuating its already low level. However, the question of his race and what role it plays in his opposition is legitimate, if not provable. A significant, and loud, portion of his opposition in the election framed him as a closet Muslim, as anti-American, a possible terrorist. Indeed many do not believe he was born here despite the presentation of his birth certificate. Obama was presented by these people as a mysterious, radical figure who would willingly destroy the country. I don’t think this is sellable, nor would it have been taken up by so many people if he were white with a traditional Anglo-American name. Now we have a subsequent movement in opposition to him, furious about things that have been done since they have been alive, but only now have they taken to the streets. The question is going to be posed.

 

Regardless of which "side" you place yourself, you have to give Habib credit for laying it out about as well as it can be.

 

I agree that all should be involved. All should pay attention. All should question the need for spending and taxes.

 

However, it certainly raises the eyebrow for some that taxes and spending JUST became in issue starting on January 20, 2009.

Regardless of which "side" you place yourself, you have to give Habib credit for laying it out about as well as it can be.

 

I agree that all should be involved. All should pay attention. All should question the need for spending and taxes.

 

However, it certainly raises the eyebrow for some that taxes and spending JUST became in issue starting on January 20, 2009.

 

I agree Clyde. There is a lot of irony if we look at the last two Presidents. Under Bush spending is out of control and government expanded tremendously. Under Clinton, the size of government reduced and he eliminated the federal deficit. Please remind me, who is the conservative and who is the liberal? :lol: :popcorn:

It seems that these days everyone uses defamation to knock down the ideas/beliefs of those who oppose them. And this virus is on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

THESE ARE EXAMPLES ONLY AND NOT WHAT I BELIEVE

- The Tea Party is full racists and homophobes

- Obama and his advisors are all card carrying socialists

 

This is exactly why people are sickened by the political atmosphere in this country. If you disagree with someone, you are labeled as something horrible.

I agree Clyde. There is a lot of irony if we look at the last two Presidents. Under Bush spending is out of control and government expanded tremendously. Under Clinton, the size of government reduced and he eliminated the federal deficit. Please remind me, who is the conservative and who is the liberal? :lol: :popcorn:

 

I agree VOR, but the current administration is giving us the worst of the previous two administrations. We are headed in the wrong direction. Out of control spending. Divisiveness all over. Strange little talk of the wars in Iraq and Afganastan, and I believe our morale as a country is dropping like a rock, much like during the Carter years.