Tea Party just racist?

[scoutingagain 20]

".......it's about his policies"

 

See that's the problem. Most of the fiscal issues they're angry about have as much or more to do with the policies of his predecessor than his.

 

SA

[SR540Beaver 116]

scoutingagain,

 

But they have grown exponentially with Bush's predecessor and there appears to be no end in sight and no stone unturned. We can't sustain the increased taxation and spending or continual erosion of our individual liberties. While Bush's actions made people uneasy, Obama's have caused people to finally draw a line in the sand. It has nothing to do with race.

[packsaddle 753]

"...Bush's predecessor..." Are you now blaming Clinton?

[BrentAllen 10]

Well, unfortunately, SR540Beaver has spilled the beans. Yes, the Tea Party blames all issues on Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton. He is the cause of all the anger in the Tea Party, and since he was America's first black president, the Tea Party is racist.

[packsaddle 753]

Wow, you're right. It all makes sense now.

[BadenP 93]

The anger is there against Obama because he knew he had to ramrod that Medical Bill through with the largely Democratic congress before the 2010 election, and that his $700 billion dollar bailout package did virtually nothing to improve the suffering economy. The big financial corporations made out like bandits awarding multi million dollar bonuses to their exec's, and laughing at Obama all the while. Bottom line the American people, Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Tea Party all feel betrayed by a guy who campaigned about bringing change to DC and then using his backroom Chicago style politics to set his own priorities rather than those of the American people.

 

The result was Obamas misguided and misdirected programs have cost his fellow Democrats re-election and you will see more of the same in 2012. IMO, Obamas lack of politcal experience and expertise has really come to light. I hope for once he has finally realized this and really tries to do some good for this country, living up to his campaign promises and getting our country back on track before it is too late.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Aw shucks guys, give me a break.......it's a darned busy day at work and I really shouldn't be posting. I'm lousy at multi-tasking.

[Beavah 205]

But they have grown exponentially with Bush's predecessor and there appears to be no end in sight and no stone unturned. We can't sustain the increased taxation and spending or continual erosion of our individual liberties.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

I'm confused again.

 

What "increased taxation" has happened in the last two years that I missed? (assumin' yeh mean "successor" and not "predecessor"). Taxes the last two years have stayed the same, except for da estate tax, which has gone to zero. Taxes for most of da country are lower than they were during Reagan's presidency. That doesn't seem like "exponential growth".

 

What continual erosion of our individual liberties has happened? Obama has largely continued warrantless wiretapping and violations of habeas corpus. Is that what yeh mean? Stuff like TSA security scanners and patdowns? Continued abuse of da patent system by large corporations at the expense of small businesses? I'm with yeh there. But I don't see anybody talkin' about those things. And da Tea Party candidates support those abuses.

 

So what, exactly, are the issues?

 

The tea party has to do with following the constitution

 

Yah, so does the ACLU, eh?

 

What do yeh mean by that? Where do yeh think we're suddenly not following da constitution?

 

lowering an overbearing tax burden, making the government live within their means

 

Yah, OK... so yeh want to decrease taxes and balance da budget at the same time. So which are you going to eliminate: Social Security, Medicare, the department of Defense, the veteran's administration?

 

keeping the government out of people's business.

 

Yah, OK... huh? Like what?

 

Keepin' RIAA from suing random individuals for sharing songs? Eliminating all da obnoxious surveillance and traffic ticket cameras some states are erecting?

 

Or is it more like eliminating regulation on deep-water drilling in the gulf (oh, wait, we did that...) or preventing regulation of financial derivatives (oh, wait, did that too...)

 

How do yeh think that the government is somehow more "in people's business" than it was two years ago? Yah, sure, we're pushing young folks to get medical insurance. But most of the states require some form of auto insurance, eh? Is there some hew and cry over that as well? We want more uninsured motorists racin' about on the highways with us as an expression of liberty?

 

Yeh see where one could be confused, yeh know? These seem like vague excuses, rather than what is really driving things.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[83Eagle 11]

What do yeh mean by that? Where do yeh think we're suddenly not following da constitution?

 

Appointing Czars with massive power and with no consent from Congress? That's in Article...???

Mandating people to buy health insurance? Can't find that in the constitution anywhere.

 

Obviously the first one is not unique to B.O.

 

Could probably come up with some more with some thinkin'. Just two that come to mind.

[scoutingagain 20]

"Obviously the first one is not unique to B.O"

 

And the second is a concept that originated and was implemented by a fiscal conservative Republican based on the argument that it is an individual's responsibility to pay for their own health insurance rather than waiting until they get hurt or become ill and requiring taxpayers to pay for treatment.

 

SA

[BrentAllen 10]

Beavah,

May this provide a little enlightenment. Yes, Mr. Cafferty, we DID remember all that crap!

 

[Woapalanne 11]

"The tea party has to do with following the constitution

 

Yah, so does the ACLU, eh? "

 

Now, THAT..... is hilarious!!

[CalicoPenn 729]

I suppose it's as hilarious as saying the NRA is about following the constitution too.

 

As far as the original question goes - I believe words mean things. If we go by the meaning, I would argue that the tea party, and most of it's adherents isn't racist. However, I would counter-argue that while they might not be racist, they are definitely bigoted.

[Woapalanne 11]

"I suppose it's as hilarious as saying the NRA is about following the constitution too."

 

Nothing hilarious about that. Unless you consider the Bill of Rights hilarious. (And why are you putting down the nation's oldest civil rights organization?)

[Gunny2862 11]

Because I'm not usually the brightest light in the room. I'm really somewhat surprised at some of the discussion here especially regarding Government spending.

 

While it's certainly no secret that spending rose under Bush, that he was in office for the housing crash, for the Bank and Speculative investing debacles that gave rise to the TARP discussion - has everyone forgotten Basic Government in the USA 101? The Congress controls the purse, and who controlled the purse and set the conditions for all of the above? Well, although there was a Republican President, he didn't have control of the House AND the Senate at any point, and at that point where the Democrats had control did the spending go up or down from before? Any guesses?

 

At any rate the Tea Party, IMHO, is about wasteful, overreaching Government Policies and Departments and Spending, and the non-representational government by regulation with no citizen representation in those processes, that limit individual liberty, and directly impact the Country I leave to my child and any children that he has.

 

While there may be racists in the Tea Party, it's not a platform of the Party, not do I believe it's in any way an element that drives the Core of it.

 

But as long as we're looking for racists, why does Joe Biden get a pass on a comment about "gonna put y'all back in chains" Really?