Tea Party Terrorism - Page 6

Do you have stats to bolster your argument that "most'"independents'"are hard-core conservatives"?.

If the information isn't properly sourced (e. g. citation/reference), and the columnist works for Faux Noise, and the column appears in the WSU, then the information presented is indeed extreme-bias-with-intent.

But then again, I'm not stupid enough to read and accept op-ed pieces to begin with, as they are all extreme-bias-with-intent hit pieces, since the implicit/explicit premise is that op-ed's are all put forth with a pre-selected position to begin with.

D'oh!

You might be right, but can you provide some stats. I think that the old Democrat/Republican lines might be getting blurred when you are talking about conservatives. It does seem that the independents are growing in number--but where are they coming from? And when you are talking about independents, I don't think that they are necessarily one political party like the Tea Party or the American Independent Party. I myself will be registering as an independent because I'm sick of both the Dems and Repubs. Petty politics above the welfare of the nation.

Do you have any stats that show how many independents are not Tea Baggers??? I've been looking but haven't found any stats the breaks this down.

Can you provide stats on how many independents are truly independent and that do not belong to the Tea Party or Reform Party??

In stead of attacking his source, provide one of own that disputes what his source is saying.

Seems to me the new Independents or Tea Partiests are coming from the ranks of Democrats. They have recently decided the outcomes of 3 major elections in states Obama won. If these were Republicans, Obama would not have won Virginia, NJ and Mass. The Red sweep in Virginia wasn't the work of Republicans turned Tea Partiests, but Dems turned Independent or Tea Partiest.

I see that you have documented cases of right wing extremism, but show how these groups are linked to the Tea Party.

Agreed, show how these are linked to the Tea Party.

Right on point. Need to go back to the OP.

Can you state with certainty that the Independents are Tea Partiest? IMO, I agree that there are increasing numbers of independents, but I've been trying to locate a survey that breaks down in numbers where the independents are coming from, their political philosophy or leanings and whether you can lump them into one group. IMO, I think that a survey will find that the independents are a varied group and will vote for whom the believe is the better candidate despite the political party of the candidate.

That link in no form supports your contentions and repeating the last two doesn't make them true either.


It is a bit off the thread topic and I'm a bit tired tonight but I'll give it a quick shot. Gallup shows in this poll that conservatives are the largest ideological group. With regard to where the largest group of independents come from, I think looking at third party movements helps a bit in that regard. The Tea Party isn't a true political party yet but merely a movement that might become one or have their concerns addressed by one of the two major parties. The Reform Party expressed similar concerns and was headed by Perot and later ran Pat Buchanan as a candidate. Buchanan represents a large number of concerns that are both Democratic and Republican in that he often echos the sentiments of groups that used to be solidly in the Democratic camp but now are sort of in limbo. I'm speaking mostly about non-union Irish Catholics who are also pro-life. When you look at some of the most popular Fox pundits, they are all Irish-Catholics. (O'Reilly, Hannity) So I would say a large percentage of these independents are Irish Catholics who no longer feel they fit in the Democratic Party. The other side of the Buchanan/Perot equation is paleo-cons of which I am one. They are fair trade, not free trade. Keynesian economics are either not endorsed or do not make sense to them. They do not endorse Pax Americana or America as empire.



Ramussen keeps a running tally of their polls and the party affiliation. While it does not say who belongs to the reform party, I don't think it is entire possible to belong to the Tea Party as a political party yet. The easy understanding is that Republican blew the trust of segments of their party starting in 2000 and lost enough support to lose control in 2006 and Democrats have been bleeding support since 2008 and we now have a larger than ever group in the middle waiting cynically for some true leadership.

It most certainly does support my statements.

Just you're typical bunch of stupid old white male racists.

I think that either side would like to believe that the independents more closely align with their particular views.

Independents come from all sides and usually are not as independent as they claim to be. True independents are fairly rare from my experience. I have become more independent as time has gone by, but would say that I lean more to the conservative side of things.

The problem becomes the labels though. Once you take on the label then people do their best to drop you in a box and tell you what it is that you stand for, think, and believe. This happens everywhere, but most commonly you see it clearly in religion and politics. People like to feel they know what others think and believe, we are all a bit guilty of that. On the flip side of this, people like to believe that they are above those labels and thus call themselves independent (or in religion, non-denominational) so as to avoid the labels and the stigma they bring along with them.

I think that most people simply want to see the country do well, see their lives improve, and their children live as good as or better than they do. How that is accomplished is where the infighting occurs.

More taxes, social programs, and government for some...
Less taxes, social programs, and government for others...
Some are in between...

My views have recently shifted and I would say that I have started to identify with the message behind the Tea Party movement. Things have gone too far and we need to swing back to less intervention by the government, and lower taxes. I think that you could find people from all political parties that can agree to some extent with parts of their message.

It is sad to see people that try to take the whole movement, throw it into a box, verbally and in writing assassinate it, then try to gather to their own parties those who leave due to the stigma that is now surrounding the movement. I don't know if it will come to this, the two major parties that dominate our politics now are generally not as different as they claim anymore, and I believe we are due for a major shift in politics once more to bring out a new party that is actually different. Whether the Tea Party is it or not remains to be seen.

One thing I can say with some measure of surety, Terrorists they are not...

YOU are calling ME a "hypocritical coward?"

The person who doesn't have the moral courage to answer the question


It's right here:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...4&postcount=65

Your failure to answer this direct, simple question (because trumptman asked you not to, presumably) is the behaviour of a hypocritical coward.

I'm sure you're not a hypocritical coward. You can still answer this question. The link's above.

Actually, any chance of tea party terrorism pales in comparison to that from the multicultural, youthful, educated, colour-blind wonderkids the left is churning out at today's universities.

Why am I not surprised that trumptman is letting this one pass without comment.

He gets extremely upset when people do not use quantifiers or state their sample size.

Is it because conservatives are hypocritical cowards?

So you can copy and paste the same ridiculous question in multiple threads without regard for the issues being discussed,
but when you're called on it you run to a mod?

You've been chasing Trumpt with this exact same issue in at least two or three threads this week.

Where did you "call me on it"?

You didn't. You just attacked me at random, calling me a "hypocritical coward" using some other guy's post that I didn't even see.

And I love being called a "hypocritical coward" from the person who doesn't have the moral courage to answer the question


It's right here:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...4&postcount=65

Your failure to answer this direct, simple question (because trumptman asked you not to, presumably) is the behaviour of a hypocritical coward.

I'm sure you're not a hypocritical coward. You can still answer this question. The link's above.

Uh huh. Spin. I get it. To preserve your own thread you will try to somehow explain away how reform hasn't happened (even though the very fact that certain measures took place immediately means that it HAS) but you won't stretch and contort for a thread whose premise you disagree with.

Name calling only makes you look more foolish than you are. Just who are you including in you're typical bunch of stupid old white male racists?
Have a good night

I see where your confusion lies.

You assume that the mere passage of a law or even its implementation (partial or complete) constitutes actual reform. But reform implies that a change for the better has been made. Indeed changes have been made. Indeed they are meant to make things better (or so we're told.) But it's way too soon to know whether these changes are overall net changes for the good in the long run for the most people.

That's the problem I have with the use of the term. At best it's presumptuous and misleading. At worse it's a lie. However it does reveal the "good intention = good outcomes" crowd (i.e., those for whom the mere passage and implementation of a law that is meant to good will do good with no need to measure results.)

Spin is spin. However there's another phrase for what's being displayed here.

Sour grapes

" What hole ? "

Good luck on taking something away from people once it's been given to them!

We all realize that this was the political strategy. There's no news in that. Now the debate will continue about whether or not the programs will work or not.

You must live in some bizarro world in which applying logic and reason is the same as "spin" and "sour grapes."

Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada?

That is such compelling and overwhelming objective evidence of far left radicals college students here in the USofA.

OK, OK, OK already.

I take back my uneducated and racists statements.

The Tea Party movement does not have a single uneducated person, they have quite a few though, a few more than the national average, demographically speaking.

The Tea Party movement does not have a single racist person, they have quite a few though, a lot more than the national average, demographically speaking.

I imagine a world based on fact might seem bizarre to some.

Given how amorphous the "Tea Party" movement seems to be I don't see how very many definitive statements and characterizations could be made about it. Right now, from a political analysis perspective, the "Tea Party" movement is more of a Rorsch test than anything else.

I imagine so too.

Are we not on the internets?

Are we not in PO?

Are we not dancing around the question so as not to specifically Ad Hom while still saying what we think about the people we are debating?

Your postition is very clear, especially when your restatements are merely the same broad brush arguments.

The majority of tea party members are White, Racist, Bigoted, Hateful, Rich, Conservative, Republican Men.

Each word being an accusation, each carrying a measure of spite, and each one shown from a couple of sampled instances among the likely millions of people who identify with the message of the movement. The funny thing is, each and every one of those words can be said about all political parties if you label the entire party based on their members while only substituting the Party name at the end.

So, you have generally showed that you hate a movement of people, of which I would be surprised if you have personally met a member of and known it, Ad Hom'd it, and Libeled it, and generally feel pretty good about yourself. Congratulations, what a victory for you...

To be fair, he didn't actually use the word 'rich'.

As MJ1970 notes below, passage alone doesn't = improvement. Any study of most government programs will note that they have often been addressed dozens of times to deal with the law of unintended consequences. In this case however very little has taken place nor will it take place. This timeline on CNN (which obviously wants to put things in the best light) notes what will have happened by when. As I noted the most universally agreed upon items are front loaded and again, don't have to be taken away under repeal and reform. The most humorous thing about that timeline to me is how no changes occur in 2012. How convenient!


Remember the board has an ignore function for those who clearly intend to do nothing but troll. It also has the ability to report posts to moderators.


Yes the intent game isn't very fun and people get mad when you don't wnt to play it with them.


A big part of that debate should be noting how far out many of the benefits are pushed. The crowd that thought Obama was going to pay their mortgage, fill their gas tanks, deliver peace and get rid of $3-4 gas should remember that we still have a housing crisis, war, and expensive energy. Promises and programs are not results.


The ignore function can be your friend.


Agreed. People know they are not satisfied with the status quo and left Republicans and Bush and now are leaving Obama and Democrats. As I loved noting when Democrats took power. Being out of love with Republicans didn't mean they were in love with Democrats. Likewise being out of love with Obama and Democrats doesn't mean they are in love with Republicans. There is an ever larger group out there that is waiting to be claimed and represented. Some fair trade, America first, debt management trim the fat programs and proposals would likely grab a large chunk of them. We know they've been out there and floating around since at least 1992.


Glad to see you doing this.


Please provide proof for these statements.


Are we not locked and loaded and spamming and crossposting this across the entire forum? This place is only going to be as good as you make it. Put garbage in and don't be surprised if you don't enjoy what comes out.

Your words, not mine.

White? Check.

Racists? More so than the national average.

You left out uneducated, male, old. More so than the national average, check, check.

Why do we still need this (expires in 2041) and these and this?

Please prove this, don't just restate it.


Please prove this, don't just restate it.


Please prove this, don't just restate it.


The Federal Government never gives up something it has started. Even long after the source of the problem is gone. We still have troops in Japan. Are they still our enemy? We still have troops in Germany. Are we still fighting Hitler?

There is still debate about whether we have fully repealed the tax to fund the Spanish American War of 1898. If you consider the what happened in 2006 to be a full repeal of it, it still only took 108 years to get the tax reversed.

Getting the federal government to stop sticking their nose into something has nothing to do with whether there is a legitimate problem there. Once they are involved, they never leave.

It's worse than that. Very often (most of the time?) their involvement actually creates worse problems than it solves (if it solves any) and these worsening problems are used as the basis for further involvement. So its involvement actually has a tendency to grow.

Actually PO has certain entertainment value regardless of my posts (or lack thereof).

In the John Stewart/Steven Colbert kind of way.

So, for example, suppose I were a blogger (I'm not), with a blog (or two), and I needed a soapbox to force my very biased viewpoint onto others (not that I myself would ever think of doing such a thing), and I found out that my blog (or two) wasn't, how shall I put it, ...

How do you do that exactly?