I really wish the Tea Party would go away

13»

Replies

  • yataheyyatahey Senior Member Posts: 5,605 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »

    FWIW, neither Tobin or Foster defend the Tea Party's tactics in this last go round. They do defend against the assertion that its Bircher redux - quite ably, I think.
    A) Still not Rockefeller liberals.
    B) Just ignore the similarities of the Tea Party and Birchers no matter how accurate. That makes you just as delusional as Tobin and Foster.
    "When the goin gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
  • Yeah, the tea party has nothing to do with the Birchers. That's an inapt comparision. The Birchers were motivated primarily by anti-communism. John Birch, in fact, was murdered by the Chicoms back in the day. hence the name.

    So what is the tea party? I think the tea party is right-wing ideology. But conservatism, by definition, is non-ideological. Here's a take. Not necessarily endorsing, but worth a read.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/confusing-politics-with-religion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=confusing-politics-with-religion
  • creekguy wrote: »
    Actually, Steven, you have every right to get your social security check while you complain about the program, just as I have a right to my earned Medicare advantage benefits, for which I too have been paying taxes for like 40 years, while saying the ACA ending the program is better deal for the country. So there.

    You miss the point. Even if I agreed that MA was bad for the country and the ACA fixed it, it wouldn't change the fact that you had a choice between the two, took the one that you believe was most detrimental to the country, and now laud the government for taking that option away from you because, apparently, you can't help yourself. You have the right to complain but i have the right to point out that the hypocripsy in this situation is just a wee bit greater than a Tea Party supporter cashing his SocSec check.
  • yatahey wrote: »
    A) Still not Rockefeller liberals.
    B) Just ignore the similarities of the Tea Party and Birchers no matter how accurate. That makes you just as delusional as Tobin and Foster.

    Who said George Bush was a Rockefeller liberal? That's about as meaningful as a suggestion that Reagan wouldn't be a Republican today or Kennedy wouldn't be a Dem.
    Sorry, I don't see it. I must be delusional.
  • yataheyyatahey Senior Member Posts: 5,605 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Who said George Bush was a Rockefeller liberal? That's about as meaningful as a suggestion that Reagan wouldn't be a Republican today or Kennedy wouldn't be a Dem.
    Sorry, I don't see it. I must be delusional.

    You suggested Buckley founded his conservative movement because of Rockefeller liberal republicans as some kind of rational that that is why he would embrace the tea party. The republican party before the tea party was not a bunch of Rockefeller liberals and that comparison was totally off the mark.
    Meanwhile you continue to ignore the similarities of the tea party and Birchers.
    You seem to think the comparisons just came out of thin air. They didn't they are real and the longer conservatives continue to ignore the fact that the tea party is the problem, the longer they'll be left in the wilderness, unable to ever win a national election. (See the clown car of candidates they put up in the last Presidential election.)
    "When the goin gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
  • yataheyyatahey Senior Member Posts: 5,605 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Yeah, the tea party has nothing to do with the Birchers. That's an inapt comparision. The Birchers were motivated primarily by anti-communism. John Birch, in fact, was murdered by the Chicoms back in the day. hence the name.

    So what is the tea party? I think the tea party is right-wing ideology. But conservatism, by definition, is non-ideological. Here's a take. Not necessarily endorsing, but worth a read.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/confusing-politics-with-religion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=confusing-politics-with-religion
    Tea baggers just replaced communists with the new boogie man to be paranoid about, that Muslim in the White House and Huma Abadin and her secret cell of government Muslims. Come on Sherb.
    "When the goin gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You miss the point. Even if I agreed that MA was bad for the country and the ACA fixed it, it wouldn't change the fact that you had a choice between the two, took the one that you believe was most detrimental to the country, and now laud the government for taking that option away from you because, apparently, you can't help yourself. You have the right to complain but i have the right to point out that the hypocripsy in this situation is just a wee bit greater than a Tea Party supporter cashing his SocSec check.

    Wow, what a nasty bit of trivia. A choice that was "detrimental to the country"? Go ahead, complain. Maybe it will make you feel better about you own detrimental decisions.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,417 Senior Member
    When I am roundly thrashed in an argument, I resort to insults.



    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    What actually happened was that I quoted Wikipedia on the fact that the ACA would save taxpayers 14 billion dollars on the MA budget. Steven chose to attack me on a trivial personal point rather than respond to the post. Its the old days of the Lodge again, apparently.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    When I am roundly thrashed in an argument, I resort to insults.



    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

    You should run for Congress..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    If you're not ignorant, you're delusional.



    So there!
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    There are a couple of significant differences between the T-party and the Birchers.

    1. The Birchers were and are Birchers, the T-Party are Birthers

    2. The Birchers believe the ChiComs had an army of 300,000 hiding in the hills of Mexico. The T-Party has correctly identified that army as 30,000,000 Mexicans.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.