Tea Party The New Civil Rights Movement?

[Lord Garon]

 

 

The Tea party is a political movement not a social movement. How can anyone derail a topic who at it's best is absurd and fallacious.

 

If the Tea Party is a political movement and not a social movement, why is there so many people in legislative power who are tea party advocates that push for social legislation against abortion rights, gays and lesbians, equality in the work place, and immigration?

 

Your inquiry, as worded, questions individual legislator agendas, not Tea Party agendas. Who knows why a legislator likes us? Maybe they want to pay lower taxes to help fund their anti [abortion, gays, lesbians, equality, immigration] legislation efforts. I can't speak to the motivations of individual legislators. I can only try to give you general Tea Party basics, although I don't think I'm getting through to you.

 

Republicans generally espouse (without actually doing anything about it) smaller government. So do the Tea Parties. Some Republicans like us for that. Tea Parties, in general, believe in the Constitution. Some politicians like us for that. Tea Parties don't, in general, believe in deficit spending, large national debt, or the high taxes needed to pay for it. Some in Congress like us for that. Most hate us for it. The Tea Party is concerned, in general, with the efficient functioning of a government as defined and, especially, as limited by the Constitution. For every citizen. There are two ways to change government, especially one resistant to change; through the political process, or, well, through another means. Colonial America chose the latter. We are choosing the former.

 

Why are you so convinced that the Tea Party wants to squash civil rights? Like any other organization... no, I can't quite say that about the Tea Parties; they aren't like any other organization. Tea Party members were primarily motivated to band together to implement political change. All the diverse members, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party, Constitutional Party, Atheists, Catholics, Gays, and Lesbians, (We don't allow bi-sexuals) bring their own personal beliefs with them, including social ones. The point here is that the Tea Parties have a broad appeal across political and social lines precisely because our "agendas" are political, and not social.

 

Stop painting us as right-wing religious zealots. I don't think I'm offending anyone of Faith in the Tea Parties, they know what I mean in this context. But if I have offended anyone, I deeply apologize; its simply from my inability to communicate effectively, not any bias.

 

Hey, the bi-sexual thing was a joke. I'm kidding you. This seems all too serious for a game forum.

[colourwheel]

 

Tea Party members were primarily motivated to band together to implement political change. All the diverse members, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party, Constitutional Party, Atheists, Catholics, Gays, and Lesbians, (We don't allow bi-sexuals) bring their own personal beliefs with them, including social ones. The point here is that the Tea Parties have a broad appeal across political and social lines precisely because our "agendas" are political, and not social.

 

Stop painting us as right-wing religious zealots. I don't think I'm offending anyone of Faith in the Tea Parties, they know what I mean in this context. But if I have offended anyone, I deeply apologize; its simply from my inability to communicate effectively, not any bias.

 

Sorry if it seems I am painting anyone as right-wing religious zealots, this was not my intent. But you have to ask yourself how do you implement political change? You put people into political office. The Tea Party might not be for social agendas but the people who are put into office by the tea party have very extreme social agendas in my opinion. If the Tea Party wants to stay true to their core beliefs their memebrs need to completely disassociate themselves from trying to elect officials with social legislation agendas completely. If not you have only the people who you advocate to put into power to blame why people might think of your party as being advocates that push for social legislation against abortion rights, gays and lesbians, equality in the work place, and immigration.

[Lord Garon]

 

If the Tea Party wants to become a more popular movement they need to stop putting people in office who push for these types of social agendas, other wise the tea party will die in the long run when it seems to only be attracting a majority of old white males, regaurdless of it's original cause or purpose..

 

 

 

Oh. Okay. Now I see the problem. Geez, I wish I had seen this post of yours before spending time on my last post.

 

Well, I tried. In truth, I really wish you didn't have to deal with all those issues which bother you so. Someday, maybe, if I and my ilk work hard enough, you won't have to.

 

C ya.

[colourwheel]

@Lord Garon

 

You don't need to appologize to me. Cya too :smile: and sleep well. and thanks for being fan of my oblivion work again :thumbsup:

Edited June 22, 2013 by colourwheel

[kvnchrist]

 

 

 

Who do you believe should have that power?

 

If you ask me, it shouldn't even be an issue of who should have that power regardless of religious or personal beliefs. It should be a non- issue all together for people to marry someone of the same sex, have the right to an abortion, be paid equally in the work place, and let immigration in America thrive...

 

 

Excellent point. I just wish your aim was more accurate. The Tea Party was absorbed into The Republican party, but to think that only social conservatives belong to the Tea Party is as absurd as believing their aren't any on the left that find fault in the measures you've expressed.

 

If the Tea Party wants to become a more popular movement they need to stop putting people in office who push for these types of social agendas, other wise the tea party will die in the long run when it seems to only be attracting a majority of old white males, regardless of it's original cause or purpose..

 

 

Yeah, Just as The Democratic Party was going to fold after President Clinton left office and the Republican Party was going to fold after President Bush did the same. I like the reference to White Males. You get offended because someone, in a previous post places you in a certain party, yet you follow their talking points like a strip map to salvation. This is partisan Ideology with little to no connection to reality.

 

 

 

Who do they believe should have that power?

 

It's obvious from looking back at even the last half decade, people who will ban gay marriage, abolish abortion, tear down pay equity, and stop immigration in our country.

 

 

 

I think the term oblivious is misused here. You are repeating rhetoric from those who oppose these people for what they stand for.

[colourwheel]

 

The Tea Party was absorbed into The Republican party, but to think that only social conservatives belong to the Tea Party is as absurd as believing their aren't any on the left that find fault in the measures you've expressed.

 

I wasn't suggesting only social conservatives belong to the Tea Party. Look carefully at what the tea party has actually acomplished when putting people into legislative political power. The Tea Party as a whole has only accomplished putting people into legislative power railing social legislation against abortion rights, gays and lesbians, equality in the work place, and immigration...

 

Are these things really what the Tea party stand for?

 

Also what exactly has tea party advocates accomplished in legislative power that does not lean to social agenda?

Edited June 23, 2013 by colourwheel

[Mandamus]

I admit I don't know much about the Tea Party movement (I'm not American), but this thread's made me curious. When people say the Tea Party is for smaller government, what is actually meant by that? Is it only about reducing the budget and the national debt or are we talking about stripping the federal government of some of its powers? And if so, in what areas?

 

Another question, regarding the origins of the movement. I only started hearing about it in early 2009, was it founded as a result of the 2008 election? And who started the movement? Was it a spontaneous grassroot movement or can we link its creation to the efforts of specific lobbies or associations? I've read parts of the wikipedia article but it's a little vague on the origins of the movement.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Mandamus

[TRoaches]

@Mandamus: The plea for "smaller government" includes a desire for less taxes, less military spending and foreign militarism, less government oversight with regard to education, and so on. In short, it is a conservative group. A common misconception is that the movement started in response to Obama's election. It is true that a few formalized groups have sprung up since the beginning of Obama's presidency that use variations on the Tea Party name but it is debatable whether any of those groups truly represent the movement itself. The movement, if not the formalized organizations, started during the Bush administration as a response to perceived abandonment of conservative principles by the Republican party and by President Bush. At that time it received very little press coverage, but became a hot topic after Obama's election.

 

The reason for this shift, in my opinion, is that the media does not like a story that upsets the prescribed "order" of conservative vs liberal or democrat vs republican and therefore did not give much coverage to a group of conservatives who oppose an administration that describes itself as conservative while ignoring conservative principles. Once a liberal president was in office they gladly gave the Tea Party movement as much coverage as possible. The same phenomenon can be observed in reverse in the media's current lack of coverage anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, who were often branded as "leftists" simply because they opposed Bush's militarism. During Bush's term they were in the news every day and it was painted as a good clean left vs right story, but they have been largely ignored by the same media now that this supposed "leftist" group opposes the current President, and opposes the dichotomy of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who is overseeing multiple foreign wars.

 

Colourwheel is not describing the Tea Party as much as she is describing the media's characterization of the Tea Party. Their focus is not social politics, but fiscal policy and civil liberties. If the Tea Party really is getting people elected (I have seen very little evidence of this) who hold those social positions it is not because of their perhaps objectionable social politics, but because of their fiscal views. If anything Tea Party members are more likely to completely ignore the social side of politics and focus on fiscal policy, and this could perhaps lead to people with objectionable social positions but sound fiscal positions being elected to office.

[colourwheel]

Maybe people should wake up and judge for themselves at what the tea party has been doing recently and see who is actually in power who are tea party members...

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53013.html

 

http://progressppl.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/the-tea-partys-social-agenda-detracts-from-its-economic-roots/

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2010/11/29/8601/return-of-the-culture-wars-tea-partys-social-and-religious-agenda-and-how-progressives-can-respond/

 

Don't take my word on how I view the tea party anyone can do as much research as they want and decide for themselves.

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

All three of those articles are editorials.