Happy Atheist Forum

Okay, we've talked about this before but since we've just had the last big primary in the country let's make some bets.  

Will the whacky Tea Party win the majority of their elections?

I am predicting that despite how terrifyingly stupid they are they will do well because they have enthusiasm on their side. Progressives and their voters are a little too cocky to win.

I think they will do a lot like the movement that got Nixon elected back in the late 60's, but the mainstream of America will soon tire of the "Grassroots" thing and it'll never last.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I think they will do a lot like the movement that got Nixon elected back in the late 60's, but the mainstream of America will soon tire of the "Grassroots" thing and it'll never last.

I have no doubt it's a fad. I just think it'll be after they are elected people will go "what the hell did we just do?"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Martin TK"I think they will do a lot like the movement that got Nixon elected back in the late 60's, but the mainstream of America will soon tire of the "Grassroots" thing and it'll never last.

I have no doubt it's a fad. I just think it'll be after they are elected people will go "what the hell did we just do?"

True, but isn't that the same after every election??

Watching and laughing from the sidelines  

I heard that Palin was going to run for the next election. Is this true?

Quote from: "karadan"I heard that Palin was going to run for the next election. Is this true?

I hope not.  I'd like to think the person running against Obama would be somebody BETTER.

Quote from: "karadan"I heard that Palin was going to run for the next election. Is this true?

Ye, isn't she their intellectual leader?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "karadan"I heard that Palin was going to run for the next election. Is this true?

I hope not.  I'd like to think the person running against Obama would be somebody BETTER.

Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you. While the lase few presidents have run for multiple terms it's not a pre-decided thing. In fact I think most presidents have only run for 1 term so I don't think it's even a "usually" thing. Not to mention Obama is starting to piss alot of Democrates off, let alone Republicans. Of course I was trully shocked when Bush not only ran for a second term but won. So you never know.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "karadan"I heard that Palin was going to run for the next election. Is this true?

Ye, isn't she their intellectual leader?

Insofar as you can use "intellectual" in referring to Palin, I suppose so.  Of course, that's like referring to a brick as "cuddly."

Apropos Book?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.fantasticfiction.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fc1%2Fc5353.jpg&hash=e92f8bba432ab933428fb4f1f706040d0907b7ae)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

STEPHEN COLBERT FOR PRESIDENT ANYONE!?

  No joke, I'd vote for him.

Quote from: "Tanker"Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you.

Not really, as that implies the potential for my assumption to even slightly affect the actual outcome.

QuoteIn fact I think most presidents have only run for 1 term so I don't think it's even a "usually" thing.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... _in_office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office) , 23 presidents have served two terms (Franklin Roosevelt actually served three and part of a fourth), 16 of those ran for both of their terms, an additional 8 ran twice but were not reelected, 2 were denied nomination for a second, 5 chose not to run again, the remainder were assassinated in their first term.  Feel free to double check my figures, but running for a second term seems to be more of the norm rather than an oddity.

QuoteNot to mention Obama is starting to piss alot of Democrates off, let alone Republicans. Of course I was trully shocked when Bush not only ran for a second term but won. So you never know.

He might not get the nomination, but I think that relies partly on who is likely to run against him as well as who the alternate nominee will be.  Aside from that, he still has a bit of time left to fix his reputation (even if that's unlikely).

Quote from: "PoopShoot"He might not get the nomination, but I think that relies partly on who is likely to run against him as well as who the alternate nominee will be.  Aside from that, he still has a bit of time left to fix his reputation (even if that's unlikely).

He will get the nomination.  Because he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tanker"Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you.

Not really, as that implies the potential for my assumption to even slightly affect the actual outcome.

new: No that coloqlialism means to assmume an outcome before all data is recieved. That is what you've done. So it's apt.

QuoteIn fact I think most presidents have only run for 1 term so I don't think it's even a "usually" thing.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... _in_office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office) , 23 presidents have served two terms (Franklin Roosevelt actually served three and part of a fourth), 16 of those ran for both of their terms, an additional 8 ran twice but were not reelected, 2 were denied nomination for a second, 5 chose not to run again, the remainder were assassinated in their first term.  Feel free to double check my figures, but running for a second term seems to be more of the norm rather than an oddity.

new: No need I wasn't sure hence the qualifiers "I think". No need to get defensive.

QuoteNot to mention Obama is starting to piss alot of Democrates off, let alone Republicans. Of course I was trully shocked when Bush not only ran for a second term but won. So you never know.

He might not get the nomination, but I think that relies partly on who is likely to run against him as well as who the alternate nominee will be.  Aside from that, he still has a bit of time left to fix his reputation (even if that's unlikely).

That's why I said you're counting your chickens before they hatch. Not all the data is in. It wasn't an attack just a cation not to make to many assumptions about an event years in the future that has many many variables.

(Wow I messed the quotes up on this one if anyone needs clarification I'll tryto fix it but frankly it's not that big a deal to me.I did mark and bold my responses though.)

I also wonder, if they don't have much success will the party even survive until 2012? Probably so unless the economy really picks up. Otherwise they'll be far and few - the die hard angry racists!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.cartoonbox.slate.com%2F%3Ffeature%3D546013408de21529978e437c99777a76&hash=b2a3564c37014aabbb8de9520991d5b9196e7f53)

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"He will get the nomination.  Because the he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

This is not necessarily true.  If said admission is likely to lead to continued or expanded political power, Obama will be thrown under the bus.

Quote from: "Tanker"No that coloqlialism means to assmume an outcome before all data is recieved. That is what you've done. So it's apt.

Read the fable from which it comes.  The woman in the fable breaks her eggs because she's daydreaming about the money she will make from her chickens.  The reason for invoking the cliche is a warning not to fuck up the plan for focusing on the outcome.

QuoteNo need I wasn't sure hence the qualifiers "I think". No need to get defensive.

I wasn't aware I had become defensive.  To the contrary, your question got me thinking, so I did a little checking and shared my findings with you.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"He will get the nomination.  Because the he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

This is not necessarily true.  If said admission is likely to lead to continued or expanded political power, Obama will be thrown under the bus.

When was the last time something like that happened?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"He will get the nomination.  Because the he's seen as the de facto party leader, refusing a sitting President the nomination is a tacit admission that one's policies are failure.  And no group of politicians has the corporate will to admit failure.

This is not necessarily true.  If said admission is likely to lead to continued or expanded political power, Obama will be thrown under the bus.

As Sophus points out, history doesn't support this view.  The last sitting President able to run for a second term who didn't do so was LBJ, who passed it up himself -- not put out by the party.  He might've lost it to Bobby Kennedy, it's true.  

The last sitting President who could run but was put out by his party nomination was Truman in '52.

While it does on occasion happen, the mood of the party does not augur such an action now.  Obama will not be thrown under the bus, because he's driving it.

Quote from: "Sophus"When was the last time something like that happened?

The last time a political party was embarrassed enough by their incumbent president to feel it necessary.

It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

Quote from: "jduster"It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

True. However their vocalness means they are more likely to vote. There was also a recent poll which showed that half of the country has no opinion on the Tea Party yet. This is why Glenn Beck is asking them to not dress up like freak shows at future rallies. So people will see them as normal, sane human beings.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "jduster"It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

True. However their vocalness means they are more likely to vote. There was also a recent poll which showed that half of the country has no opinion on the Tea Party yet. This is why Glenn Beck is asking them to not dress up like freak shows at future rallies. So people will see them as normal, sane human beings.

Whether one spends 30 hours a week being politically involved or puts no thought into politics until election day, they get the same amount of votes: one.  There are a minority of loud ignorant people who vote, but theres a majority of silent ignorant people who vote as well.

I do not think the tea party should be seen a collective group, but rather as diverse individuals who share a few things in common.  The tea party has people who are smart, dumb, wealthy, not financially well, racist, color-blind, religious, non-religious, prejudiced, and fair.  Unfortunately it is victim to many stereotypes.  It may be too late for people to see them as sane, but Glenn Beck having nothing to do with them at all can only help them recover from their freak show image.

I, by the way, do not affiliate myself with the Tea Party, even though I am a conservative Republican.  I am not entirely against them though.  I do enjoy Obama receiving fierce opposition though.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend I guess.

I like that more Americans are involved in the political process, even though I disagree with some of their planks.  

I do agree with their concern over the federal debt, which is going to eat us alive if something isn't done.  I disagree that the answer is cutting taxes and services.  Stronger Federal oversight might've prevented the '08 financial meltdown.   Oversight has a place, whether it is in food safety, air travel, or corporate equal-employment policies, and those services require money.

It never ceases to amaze me how many libertarians and fellow-travelers drive on public roads as they complain about the governments which built them.

Quote from: "jduster"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "jduster"It depends how you define poorly and moderate success, but I would say somewhere between the two.

Some people, especially devout members of the Tea Party know this, but while the Tea Party has a lot of supporters, it is proportionally not popular by Americans.  While the Tea Party may seem popular because it has many participants, they are a vocal minority.  A majority of Americans don't support the Tea Party, but are a silent majority who does not feel like wasting their time protesting.

I can expect the Tea Party to win in some areas of the country, but even if they all get elected, the Republican Party will still be dominated by moderates, as it is now.

True. However their vocalness means they are more likely to vote. There was also a recent poll which showed that half of the country has no opinion on the Tea Party yet. This is why Glenn Beck is asking them to not dress up like freak shows at future rallies. So people will see them as normal, sane human beings.

Whether one spends 30 hours a week being politically involved or puts no thought into politics until election day, they get the same amount of votes: one.  There are a minority of loud ignorant people who vote, but theres a majority of silent ignorant people who vote as well.

Of course. However, most Tea Part supporters are very enthusiastic, whereas a lot of Democratic ones are unimpressed with the government. The more excited you are the more likely you are to actually go through the trouble of voting. Pollers take this into consideration.

Sarah Palin thinks the Left has a Tea Party:

Quote from: "SarahPalinUSA"With all the talk from the Left re: who funds Tea Party Americans, one might point out the Left's "tea party" is Acorn, funded by Fed Govt

Does this mean she's trying to make others look as crazy as she is? Do Tea Partists know they have an awful image and that's why they're trying to compare their opponents to themselves!

Quote from: "Sophus"Sarah Palin thinks the Left has a Tea Party:

Quote from: "SarahPalinUSA"With all the talk from the Left re: who funds Tea Party Americans, one might point out the Left's "tea party" is Acorn, funded by Fed Govt

Does this mean she's trying to make others look as crazy as she is? Do Tea Partists know they have an awful image and that's why they're trying to compare their opponents to themselves!

Indeed, this is akin to the fundamentalist criticizing atheism because "it's a religion". It shows a startling lack of self-awareness.

Also, she seems unaware that not only has ACORN changed its name, it is in the process of disintegrating as local chapters attempt to distance themselves from the national taint of their scandal.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"Sarah Palin thinks the Left has a Tea Party:

Quote from: "SarahPalinUSA"With all the talk from the Left re: who funds Tea Party Americans, one might point out the Left's "tea party" is Acorn, funded by Fed Govt

Does this mean she's trying to make others look as crazy as she is? Do Tea Partists know they have an awful image and that's why they're trying to compare their opponents to themselves!

Indeed, this is akin to the fundamentalist criticizing atheism because "it's a religion". It shows a startling lack of self-awareness.

As far as name calling goes, I have a new political hero (http://gawker.com/5645103/dem-chairman-sick-of-these-tea-party-fckers).

Quote from: "Sophus"As far as name calling goes, I have a new political hero (http://gawker.com/5645103/dem-chairman-sick-of-these-tea-party-fckers).

Good shit there.  Need moar folk like that!

I'm still playing Mr. Pessimist but here's a view from someone a little more optimissitc:

Quote from: "url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-optimistic-scenario-f_b_739775.html]Robert Kuttner[/url]"]Tired of bleak political news? Here is an optimistic scenario of what just might happen on November 2: some Republican gains, but both houses of Congress remain Democratic.

It may well be that the anticipated Republican takeover of Congress peaked a little too soon and that the Tea Parties were too successful for their own good. As Democrats get more strategic about smoking out the core differences between the two parties, disaffected voters will think twice about electing lunatic fringe candidates.

Karl Rove, nobody's idea of a liberal, is in the doghouse with Sean Hannity and the Tea Party crowd because Rove has publicly said that some of the candidates who won Republican nominations are too far-right to get elected. If Karl Rove is worried about this risk to his grand designs, it may even be true.

One can hope. Surely there will be some Republican voters who won't be able to summon the enthusiasm to vote for the nutters. Problem is nutty is the new mainstream.

The Tea Partiers will sweep up most of the Religious Right vote, but they've alienated the centrist business Republicans.  Alienating Wall Street is never good political strategy, particularly if one is a Republican.

If Palin runs and somehow this country loses enough IQ points to let her win...I'm moving to Canada...

Quote from: "GAYtheist"If Palin runs and somehow this country loses enough IQ points to let her win...I'm moving to Canada...

You need not worry.  The Republican power structure won't likely let her grab the nomination, because she's a walking landmine.

I don't know...the Republican party is slowly being turned into the tea party from the inside out, by 2012 they may have been retarded enough where they will nominate her. If she does get elected, well look on the bright side, Republicans will never sit in the oval office again or at least not for a long, long time.

Well, I may have to change my vote seeing as the Dems are actually campaigning well against the extremism now.

To those in Europe, is there the right-wing craziness on the rise (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,719842,00.html) there too?

Quote from: "Sophus"Well, I may have to change my vote seeing as the Dems are actually campaigning well against the extremism now.

To those in Europe, is there the right-wing craziness on the rise (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,719842,00.html) there too?

Geert Wilders is the result of 40 years of failed socialist immigration and -integration policies in the Netherlands. He points his finger to everything that is wrong with those policies and the socialists hate them for that. For that reason, they try to push him in the right-wing crazy corner. They did so in the past with the charismatic Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (both were murdered). From a political point of view, he is a libertarian by heart.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't know...the Republican party is slowly being turned into the tea party from the inside out, by 2012 they may have been retarded enough where they will nominate her. If she does get elected, well look on the bright side, Republicans will never sit in the oval office again or at least not for a long, long time.

I think they're smarter than that.  Palin cannot pull more than 40, maybe 42% polling in a general election, and the campaign managers know it.  And they have the ears of the leadership, after all; in both parties, the tails is wagging the dog.  The unelectable is discarded, and the policy is modified to conform to the electable.

And if they try anyway, so much the better; the Dems are the lesser of two evils.

NPR had a piece (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.pkp?storyId=130238835) on All Things Considered this afternoon.

The "party" will not hold together for long, I don't think, a few years at most.  The tensions between libertarians who reject the government's power to regulate things like drugs and abortion (indeed, their relegating such issues to low priority) will eventually drive the evangelicals pissy.  They'll leave in a huff.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Sophus"Well, I may have to change my vote seeing as the Dems are actually campaigning well against the extremism now.

To those in Europe, is there the right-wing craziness on the rise (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,719842,00.html) there too?

Geert Wilders is the result of 40 years of failed socialist immigration and -integration policies in the Netherlands. He points his finger to everything that is wrong with those policies and the socialists hate them for that. For that reason, they try to push him in the right-wing crazy corner. They did so in the past with the charismatic Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (both were murdered). From a political point of view, he is a libertarian by heart.

Do they see the average American politician as a fair right nutter?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Sophus"Well, I may have to change my vote seeing as the Dems are actually campaigning well against the extremism now.

To those in Europe, is there the right-wing craziness on the rise (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,719842,00.html) there too?

Geert Wilders is the result of 40 years of failed socialist immigration and -integration policies in the Netherlands. He points his finger to everything that is wrong with those policies and the socialists hate them for that. For that reason, they try to push him in the right-wing crazy corner. They did so in the past with the charismatic Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (both were murdered). From a political point of view, he is a libertarian by heart.

Do they see the average American politician as a fair right nutter?

I have to go back on my previous words, because I've just read Geert Wilder's crappy, Islamophobic, "political" program. Wilders might have been a libertarian in the past, but now he is nothing more than a right-wing populist. He plays in the same league as the Tea Party.

In general, people here in Europe know very little about American politicians. With luck, they could recall the names of five American politicians (Obama, Palin, Bush, Clinton and Schwarzenegger). Of these five, Obama, Clinton and Schwarzenegger still receive positive notes (although the initial euphoria is declining); the other two are placed in the "Looney Toons" category.

Maybe it will be Trump running for President (http://www.popeater.com/2010/10/06/donald-trump-president-run/) in 2012.

Quote"I'm a Republican so if I did anything, I'd do it, I guess, as a Republican," Trump told FOX on Tuesday. "I'm totally being serious because I can't stand what's happening to the country. First time I am being serious about it. That doesn't say I'm going to do it."

For those asking about Sarah Palin, I think she will try to run. She is seeking endorsements from those whom she endorses and is trying to get in power, and then gets angry when they don't return the favor.

Quote from: "Slate"Joe Miller's Tea Party honeymoon didn't last very long. The Alaska blog Mudflats reveals that in mid-September, the Sarah Palin-endorsed senatorial candidate got an irate, occasionally all-caps e-mail from Todd Palin about Miller's appearance on Fox the previous day. Apparently Miller had declined to genuflect before the throne of Sarah Palin's presidential aspirations, and her husband was beside himself: "Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe and yet he can't answer a simple question 'is Sarah Palin Qualified to be President.' I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS. Joe, please explain how this endorsement stuff works, is it to be completely one sided. Sarah spent all morning working on a Facebook post for Joe, she won't use it, not now." So there! Miller forwarded the e-mail to his aides with this properly punctuated message: "Just found this in my inbox. This is what we're dealing with. Note the date and the complete misconstruction of what I said. Holy cow." Todd Palin, who apparently shares his wife's tendency to blame the media for every problem in his life, tells the Weekly Standard "there's no story here," except "the fact that the press put our personal emails online again, and again couldn't even be bothered to conceal our email addresses or take any steps to protect our privacy." Politico's Ben Smith disagrees. He says the e-mails illuminate "Palin's ambitions," "Todd Palin's role as enforcer," and "their capacity to alienate an ally." Andrew Sullivan says that's "everything you need to know about Palin."

However, if this Joe Miller guy doesn't want to be that closely associated with Sarah Palin you have to wonder how much influence she really has, even within the Republican party itself.

Quote from: "Sophus"However, if this Joe Miller guy doesn't want to be that closely associated with Sarah Palin you have to wonder how much influence she really has, even within the Republican party itself.

I had thought her negatives inside the Republican party were high, but she was carrying a 76% approval as late as July, I've come to learn.

I'm fine with that.  She will alienate some Republicans, and will not attract enough to offset their loss, I think.  Huckabee is the far more dangerous Republican, with Romney not far behind.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"However, if this Joe Miller guy doesn't want to be that closely associated with Sarah Palin you have to wonder how much influence she really has, even within the Republican party itself.

I had thought her negatives inside the Republican party were high, but she was carrying a 76% approval as late as July, I've come to learn.

I'm fine with that.  She will alienate some Republicans, and will not attract enough to offset their loss, I think.  Huckabee is the far more dangerous Republican, with Romney not far behind.

Agreed, although if the trend stays it will probably be a Tea Partier running for office in 2012. For some reason they seem to get the better turn outs during primaries.

Quote from: "Sophus"Agreed, although if the trend stays it will probably be a Tea Partier running for office in 2012. For some reason they seem to get the better turn outs during primaries.

Well, they do strike a chord, but what neither of the (sub)parties seem to realize is that they are splitting the Republican pie.  A sizable minority of Americans will vote for a Teabagger, but it's still a minority, in the end.  Big Business would rather vote Democrat than populist, which is all TBers really are: another avatar of Know-Nothings, or Bryanites, or Wallace-ites, or Perotistas.

I think the Tea Party movement or whatever it was originally called was something that was desperately needed in American politics. The original participants were Republicans, Democrats, and Independents that were tired of both Republican and Democrat candidates. Americans need actual representation in the House and Senate rather than choosing candidates based on party affiliation who ultimately vote with consideration of who pays them the most and what union or group will help get them re-elected 2 years or 6 years later.

I don't know what the Tea Party is now though. I think the Christine O'Donnell primary win was basically the Tea Party equivalent to 'jumping the shark'.  How they were able to find an even dumber candidate than Palin is beyond me. The original Tea Party sparked a little optimism in me for the future of American politics. The current Tea Party sparks a little fear in me for the future of American politics. Maybe the latter is skewed by the obvious campaign to discredit the Tea Party movement. Maybe the 'movement' is still strong and keeping with its original goals. All I really know is if a candidate like O'Donnell was running in my state then she wouldn't make it to Washington.

FOUR DAYS!  

You know, I was thinking... if the Tea Party does horribly this Tuesday I don't think they'll be good sports about it. How can they go from this great raging ball of hate to, "oh well, I tried.... good luck in office guys!" I'm betting they'll say some of the most obviously stupid, crazy, offensive, racist things we've heard from them yet, which will probably hinder them from continuing to be a political force after next week.... if they lose.

Yes, four more days.

What many people do not realize is that the Tea Party is a group of many completely different people.

The party is a mix of smart, dumb, non-religious, religious, conservative, libertarian, pro-war, anti-war, center-right, and far-right.

I think the Tea Party are significant in helping the effort of opposing Obama.  Having a common enemy unifies them all.

When they succeed in defeating the Democrats and Obama, the party will likely lose its unity and internally fight itself.

Quote from: "jduster"Yes, four more days.

What many people do not realize is that the Tea Party is a group of many completely different people.

The party is a mix of smart, dumb, non-religious, religious, conservative, libertarian, pro-war, anti-war, center-right, and far-right.

I think the Tea Party are significant in helping the effort of opposing Obama.  Having a common enemy unifies them all.

When they succeed in defeating the Democrats and Obama, the party will likely lose its unity and internally fight itself.

A very astute observation.  Nothing tames a movement like power.

QuoteWhat many people do not realize is that the Tea Party is a group of many completely different people.

Not according to the CBS/NY Times poll.

Quote from: "url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html]CBS[/url]"]Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them â€" 89 percent â€" are white. Just one percent is black...

Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39 percent call themselves very conservative. Sixty percent say they always or usually vote Republican. Forty percent say the United States needs a third party, while 52 percent say it does not...

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people. . .

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.

But you're right that they all hate Obama. They have flat out said that they're number one goal is "to make Obama a one term President." Lovely. Damn the country to hell so long as they get political gain.

I disagree.

Obama did not give tax cuts; he gave tax rebates.  Rebates are temporary and cuts are permanent.  There's the difference.

The tea party is very diverse.  Racially, I agree there aren't that many African Americans involved in the movement.  African Americans, statistically speaking, are more liberal than conservative.  But this is not a black/white issue.  The tea party's main complaint is that the federal government under the Obama administration is growing too big in size, and that does not involve skin color.  And of course libertarians and other right-wingers vote Republican, because they understand their votes for a third party are spoilers at best and that Republican is the lesser evil.

When I said diversity, I meant diversity in political philosophy, rather than demographic.  Some Tea Party members are devoutly religious, others are non-religious, and the rest are moderately religious.  We both know the tea party is overall right-wing, but how far to the right should the government go, that's where there's disagreement.  Some are center-right, some are right, and some are very far to the right.  There are moderate right-wingers who support some programs such as Social Security, and there are extreme people who want to cut the size of government by 90%.

Whenever the government spends money, as a corollary, taxes must be increased.  He may not have to raise taxes now, but eventually, he will have to.  Obama has increased spending to an all time high, so we should expect the bill to arrive soon.  I mean, it's going to have to arrive eventually.

I am happy that Americans are rising up and getting politically involved and criticizing our much inept president, even though I am not part of the tea party and I disagree with them on many things.

Are you saying you would like the government to be completely laissez-faire toward the economy during a recession in spite of what every economic advisor (including John McCain's) and the United Nations has recommended every country caught in the recession do? How does that help anyone? The unemployment rate would something like 16% if there were no stimulus.

QuoteThe tea party's main complaint is that the federal government under the Obama administration is growing too big in size,

The tea partiers say they want small government but that's not true. Look at the candidates they have running. There are at least five or six of them running for Senate who want a government so big it can track, monitor and force a teenage girl raped by her father to have his baby. In their own words, they do not support abortion in cases of rape or incest. This is a small government?
They also want a government so big it can deny the rights of a community of muslims to build a community center because it's someplace "offensive". Some, such as Miller, would like an Amendment outlawing gay marriage.
That is small government? When the feds decide who you can and cannot love?  When they say small government, they mean that they would like for no more rules and regulations placed on unscrupulous corporations. Take the mining industry for example. Sharon Angle, among others, would like to deregulate the mining industry. Regulations that were put in place because of tragedies that resulted in dead miners. These rules devised by "big government" don't trample on any personal freedoms, they save and protect lives. This ideal "small government" of theirs is nothing but a lazy government that cares about profit over human life.

Even if Obama were inept when comes to the economy, how can we let this sort of moral backpedalling take place and live with ourselves? When the economy is weak people are at their most vulnerable, and they'll turn to anybody "different" without realizing how horridly different they are.

QuoteHe may not have to raise taxes now, but eventually, he will have to. Obama has increased spending to an all time high, so we should expect the bill to arrive soon. I mean, it's going to have to arrive eventually

Higher taxes is going to arrive eventually regardless of who's president because of the massive deficit left to us by Republicans. Obama hasn't spent anywhere near the amount Bush has and the money he is spending actually goes back into the economy, and saves jobs. What is President suppose to do? Pop some corn, sit back, ignore ever economist in the entire world and watch the country unexplainably get better?

QuoteSome Tea Party members are devoutly religious, others are non-religious, and the rest are moderately religious.

I'm sure non-religious and moderately religious ones exist within the group, but surely they are a minority, no?

Quote from: "jduster"I disagree.

Obama did not give tax cuts; he gave tax rebates.  Rebates are temporary and cuts are permanent.  There's the difference.

Given the $4.3 trillion with a T that your avatar added to the national debt, combined with the shitty economy Shrub left, this is the only prudent thing to do: temporary rebates, to increase capital circulation, which will be scaled back so that we can go about our business of paying our bills.  Even with no increase in government size at all, increased taxes will be necessary to pay down the debt, unless we intend on walking out of it, or spending enormous amounts in interest alone by amortizing it further.

QuoteThe tea party's main complaint is that the federal government under the Obama administration is growing too big in size, and that does not involve skin color.

If this is so, why weren't they shouting down opponents with "I want my country back!" when W was large and in charge?  Couldn't be because he's white, right?  Ri-i-i-ight.

QuoteAnd of course libertarians and other right-wingers vote Republican, because they understand their votes for a third party are spoilers at best and that Republican is the lesser evil.

Actually, when I was an active Libertarian, I typically voted Lib.  Having said that, I've moved to voting generally speaking for third-parties as much as possible, because the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is narrowing.

QuoteSome Tea Party members are devoutly religious, others are non-religious, and the rest are moderately religious.

These are religious and not political stances.  

QuoteWe both know the tea party is overall right-wing, but how far to the right should the government go, that's where there's disagreement.  Some are center-right, some are right, and some are very far to the right.  There are moderate right-wingers who support some programs such as Social Security, and there are extreme people who want to cut the size of government by 90%.

As Soph has demonstrated, the TP is largely a block of disenchanted Republicans who are gravitating to a populist conservatism -- a recurrent trend in American history, if you consider the "Know-Nothings," the Populist party proper led by Bryan in the late 19th century, the "Boll Weevil" Democrats of the 40s and 50s, or the Perotistas of the 90s.

QuoteWhenever the government spends money, as a corollary, taxes must be increased.

It's a pity Bush Jr forgot this basic fact of Checkbook Balancing 101, in waging two very expensive wars off the books, increasing the government's documented outlays, and -- cutting taxes.  Smart move there.

QuoteHe may not have to raise taxes now, but eventually, he will have to.  Obama has increased spending to an all time high, so we should expect the bill to arrive soon.  I mean, it's going to have to arrive eventually.

Once Obama & the government has wound down the two wars he inherited, and turned the economy back to a bit of modest growth, I bet you'll see expenditures drop.  If they don't drop, we will not remain solvent much longer.

QuoteI am happy that Americans are rising up and getting politically involved and criticizing our much inept president, even though I am not part of the tea party and I disagree with them on many things.

Inept in comparison with who?  Do tell.

I found this the other day:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... h-brothers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers)

Were you guys aware of this?

In general outline, yes, and thanks for the detail.

I think all paramedics should be held responsible for the deaths that happen under their care.
These weak "but he had a knife stuck in his heart" type excuses don't work with me.
And don't try convincing me otherwise with ya fancy book learnin, cause I'm not lisnen.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I think all paramedics should be held responsible for the deaths that happen under their care.
These weak "but he had a knife stuck in his heart" type excuses don't work with me.
And don't try convincing me otherwise with ya fancy book learnin, cause I'm not lisnen.

I notice your wheelbarrow-menagerie is missing.  Were you perhaps afraid of being attended by incompetent EMTs in losing a hand or foot?

Just askin', you know.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I notice your wheelbarrow-menagerie is missing.  Were you perhaps afraid of being attended by incompetent EMTs in losing a hand or foot?

Just askin', you know.

That was my Halloween avatar Strangelove, perhaps a cross member added to the sticks would give them an Easter feel.
In the meantime I have given some thought to training some killer turkeys.

Mounting a bodyguard?  Good idea.  We like pudding.

Well, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio got in. Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle didn't. So it could've been worse.  
Although it does really suck that one of the first atheists elected to a political position like Senator is Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is not an atheist.  His opponent did make a slander ad which accused Paul of being an atheist in order to take away from his votes though.

I am disappointed O'Donnell and Angle did not win, but I am very happy with the overall results.

Quote from: "jduster"I am disappointed O'Donnell and Angle did not win, but I am very happy with the overall results.

Yeah, Leno, Letterman, and O'Brien are pretty down about the O'Donnell loss too.

Is there lots of sarcasm going on in this thread? I was led to believe O'Donnell was crazy.

Quote from: "karadan"Is there lots of sarcasm going on in this thread? I was led to believe O'Donnell was crazy.

Yes, the guys I listed are light night comedians.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "karadan"Is there lots of sarcasm going on in this thread? I was led to believe O'Donnell was crazy.

Yes, the guys I listed are light night comedians.

That's what i thought.. Soooo, was Jduster being serious? I know he likes Bush but isn't O'Donnell a bit of a stretch?

I am an ardent atheist, but also an unabashed conservative and anti-liberal.

The two conflict with each other.  Often!

I dislike both the religious and the left-wing agendas that politicians are supporting.

I believe, eventually, atheism will be vindicated, but the most pressing issue now, I feel, is reversing the Barack Obama administration.

Yes, I do criticize Angle and ODonnell for supporting religious values in government, though, they are, by far, in my view, the lesser evils.

Quote from: "jduster"Rand Paul is not an atheist.  His opponent did make a slander ad which accused Paul of being an atheist in order to take away from his votes though.

I am disappointed O'Donnell and Angle did not win, but I am very happy with the overall results.

An Objectivist who is not an atheist?  

Rand Paul is not an Objectivist.

His name is not an allusion to Ayn Rand, at all.

It is simply an abbreviation of Randal.

Yes, when the whole frat-hazing thing came out, Rand Paul immediately, and sickeningly, went on an "I'm a Christian" binge.

Quote from: "Sophus"Well, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio got in. Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle didn't. So it could've been worse.  
Although it does really suck that one of the first atheists elected to a political position like Senator is Rand Paul.

Uh..He's a Presbyterian.
Just because a club he belonged to at college that "made fun of baptists" doesn't mean he's an atheist.  He is pro-life, anti-gay, and thinks small businesses should be able to restrict who their clientele is based on race.  I have yet to meet an atheist who shared 1 trait with him.
[youtube:1nsmje5a]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkumBcWAlrM[/youtube:1nsmje5a]

He said he is a "big fan" of Ayn Rand, which makes it hard to believe he'.

[youtube:1ozer633]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU[/youtube:1ozer633]

QuoteHe is pro-life, anti-gay, and thinks small businesses should be able to restrict who their clientele is based on race. I have yet to meet an atheist who shared 1 trait with him.

That's a good point. Although Ayn Rand (an atheist) was sort of anti-gay.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then added that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3]

It's possible he's a sincere Christian. But maybe he's just politiking.

From the horse's mouth:

[youtube:2t4nhrpz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz53WkDY8H4[/youtube:2t4nhrpz]

It might surprise you to know that there are many Christian fans of Rand because of her preachments on self-reliance.  It would appear that the faithful, too, have a sense of "enlightened self-interest."

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"From the horse's mouth:

[youtube:h5onjj2l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz53WkDY8H4[/youtube:h5onjj2l]

It might surprise you to know that there are many Christian fans of Rand because of her preachments on self-reliance.  It would appear that the faithful, too, have a sense of "enlightened self-interest."

I find it hard to believe he's not lying. He won't shake hands with someone who attacks Christianity but he a fanboy of a philosopher that attacked it constantly in her works? Maybe he's truly incapable of seeing the contradiction but, it seems a bit of a stretch. I suspect it to be politics as usually, but I suppose you're right, I can'y exactly claim he's an atheist.

Ayn Rand does represent the behavior and attitude of a number of Christians, however, in my experience those Christians are no as open and honest about their "self-interest" as others. They're hypocrites that will quote Jesus on Sunday about giving unto Ceasar what is Ceaser's and complain about paying taxes to help those that can't help themselves throughout the other six days of the week. Usually they don't just come out and say "I'm selfish!" like Rand (the Ayn not the Paul).

It should also be noted that her style of writing is such as to scare off those not decided upon penetrating her philosophy; given the fact that reading in general is on the decline in America, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many Christians are unaware of her atheism, having absorbed her philosophy at third- or fourth-hand.

Your point about his refusing to shake hands with one Christian insulter while reading an atheist author has some validity, but there are nuances as well.  I imagine that in Kentucky considerations of honor have a place in a man's heart; they sure did in Tennessee next door when I lived there. Rand, on the other hand, would be an abstract dissentient whom one could cherry-pick with ease.