If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Tea Party experiences rapid growth after adopting "The stupid, it burns..." as official motto   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 112
    More: Interesting, Rasmussen poll, Tea Party Express, experiences, Scott Rasmussen  
•       •       •

3296 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 May 2013 at 9:31 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-28 05:13:39 PM

RedTank: whidbey: RedTank: /I just want a 3rd party so badly....

They don't grow on the trees, you know.

How is it that so many want one "so badly" and yet there isn't one?

I know, I know. Rhetorical question.

/men or mice?

Something to the effect that the vast majority of people must actually be happy contrary to everything politically minded people tend to argue against.


Or complacent enough by our superficially high quality of life and too caught up in the means it takes to pay for it. ;)
 
2013-05-28 05:17:48 PM

markfara: The Tea Party is concerned with taxes, not social issues, and their membership draws heavily from both parties.


The dumb thing about the Tea Party, is that the original Boston Tea Party was caused by the removal of export taxes on tea shipped from London, which caused cheaper tea to arrive in Boston in competition with other tea sources. They were protesting a removal of taxes! (yes, import tax was still paid on arrival in the colonies, but the same for everyone). A protest caused by the removal of taxes being used as a model for an organization that wants to reduce taxes. A fitting model for today's dummererest Tea Party.
 
2013-05-28 05:20:20 PM

RedTank: whidbey: RedTank: The original tea party was originally more libertarian oriented.  The Republicans hi-jacked it shortly after it's inception and made it their own.  Now like Frankenstien and his monster the tea party will be the ultimate downfall of it's creator/sponcer.

Yeah, but it was still stupid.

Perhaps, but it had potential.


Don't mind me , a little bored at work here but

How, exactly?

What would you have liked to have seen out of the original movement ?
 
2013-05-28 05:30:51 PM

RedTank: The Name: The Tea Party was never libertarian.  It may have adopted a libertarian tone from the RON PAUL movement that preceded it, but no movement known as the Tea Party has ever actually been libertarian.  From the beginning it has been primarily a cover for old school Republican bigotry and extreme social conservatism.

Fair enough.  I can't argue against that point - It's merely my opinion that the Tea Party was at its most relevant and promising during Ron Paul's rise around the 08 elections.

/I just want a 3rd party so badly....


I dunno.  I'm with you in wanting a third party, but I don't think having that party come from the fiscally rightward edge of the already extremely Randian Republican Party is going to do us any good.  If anything, we need a genuine socialist party to even things out.
 
2013-05-28 05:58:39 PM
The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men:
They wont get their Tax Exempt status pulled. They would still be a 501 Non-Profit, they would just have to disclose their donors.

That should make them disappear even more quickly and permanently, since many of these republican shadow donors are too pussy to put their names to their donations. The corporations that support some of these republican candidate douchebags (or at least their CEOs) know they would catch hell from their customer base if their donations were disclosed.
 
2013-05-28 06:02:41 PM

The Name: If anything, we need a genuine socialist party to even things out.


Is socialism even popular in this country anymore?

We need a really good movie about Eugene V. Debs. Yes, even if DiCaprio plays him. ;)
 
2013-05-28 06:05:17 PM

The Name: RedTank: The Name: The Tea Party was never libertarian.  It may have adopted a libertarian tone from the RON PAUL movement that preceded it, but no movement known as the Tea Party has ever actually been libertarian.  From the beginning it has been primarily a cover for old school Republican bigotry and extreme social conservatism.

Fair enough.  I can't argue against that point - It's merely my opinion that the Tea Party was at its most relevant and promising during Ron Paul's rise around the 08 elections.

/I just want a 3rd party so badly....

I dunno.  I'm with you in wanting a third party, but I don't think having that party come from the fiscally rightward edge of the already extremely Randian Republican Party is going to do us any good.  If anything, we need a genuine socialist party to even things out.


[notthisshiatagain.jpeg]
also, there is already a socialist party, I'm sure you are aware.
 
2013-05-28 06:14:57 PM

studs up: also, there is already a socialist party,


Just saying, if they're not going anywhere politically, they really shouldn't be wasting everyone's time pretending they're the example.
 
2013-05-28 06:21:20 PM

whidbey: studs up: also, there is already a socialist party,

Just saying, if they're not going anywhere politically, they really shouldn't be wasting everyone's time pretending they're the example.


So you're looking for a socialist party with a different name? Who is more qualified to run a socialist candidate than the socialist party? Maybe a Soros like guy can tweak the optics to make a new party look more appealing using the same platform. Is that what you are hoping for in a party not wasting people's time?
 
2013-05-28 06:32:32 PM

studs up: Who is more qualified to run a socialist candidate than the socialist party?


I don't he's qualified at all. He wasn't even a blip on the radar in the past...how many elections?

They're nobodies. They need to go back to the drawing board.
 
2013-05-28 08:21:33 PM
I care for the tea party as much as they care about me
 
2013-05-29 01:56:22 AM
You know, people don't seem to give a rat's ass about political funding and who is doing it, at least on a nationally major scale, so I have to wonder why it is that so many groups want to keep their donor lists private. It certainly isn't to hide from voters, as voters generally don't care. Of course, if you're looking at it from a "now where did that money go..." perspective.

Have we considered that the tea party is only bankrolled because bankrolling them just so happens to be a way of laundering money? They might not even care about the politics, it just might be about moving money around without oversight.
 
Displayed 12 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report