Tea Party

[804brown]

I'm a very confused person???

Now I am very confused.

"Which side are you on, which side are you on" You are either with the working class , middle class and the poor or you are with the rich and powerful. Im not sure if you are aware but the Mtea party was founded and funded by extremely wealthy people who only want to destroy unions and working families and end regulations and taxes on their huge corporations . Google the name Koch Brothers or "Americans for Prosperity". This is not a populist party:these nuts want to abolish the minumum wage!! So wake up and pick sides!!

 

[Hermes]

Every word of it. As imperfect as man is a very intelligent group of men some 230 or so years ago came up with the most perfect framework for a government the world has ever seen. It's a shame our leaders see it as a hurdle to be jumped over rather than a guideline to govern by.

So you want the constitution we have now or the one the "founding fathers" wrote? What is your view on slavery?

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Yea but is the tea party for making it legal?

The TEA Party is made up of 3 different types of people.

1. Libertarians. They want the federal government to obey the constraints placed on it by the United States Constitution. Libertarians themselves are made up of two different groups. Half of them believe in the Constitution, states rights, limited federal government, and for the most part, FREEDOM. The other half are simply drug addicts who think everything from marijuana to possibly even things like heroin should be sold at the corner gas station.

2. Conservatives. They only differ from the freedom wing of the libertarians on religious and drug issues. Conservatives support the "war on drugs" and are against things like abortion, the gay agenda and legalized marijuana.

3. Independents. Many TEA Party "members" are people who are fed up with BOTH of the two mainstream parties. They realize the democrats are nothing but communists these days, and the party-line republicans are not much more than a sock puppet for giant corporations.

The TEA party, for the most part, opposes both the communist democrats and the large corporations. But like any other political group, they're subject to being "hijacked" by special interests, and flat-out lies spread by opposing parties. Those who think the TEA party wants to destroy the middle class have simply been lied to.

Tea Partiers are against unions just like republicans

Tea Partiers oppose unions simply because the unions support communists and bully their members into doing the same. In 2005 I refused to put a John Kerry sticker on my car and ended up getting threatened by my union steward. It got to the point I was afraid my car would get valdalized in the parking lot so I bought an old beater car.

Unions had a purpose, and still do, but they go too far with their demands, and as long as union workers are paid well above what is practical in today's economy, they're hurting the industries they work for and they actually shoot themselves in the foot by forcing businesses to either go bankrupt or do another round of layoffs, or in manufacturing, export jobs to China.

Why would UPSF be having non-union contractors like Covenant Transport and CRST run their linehaul freight when they've got their own drivers sitting at home? Eventually it's going to get to the point these non-union drivers working for these crappy companies are going to be able to bring home a paycheck that's bigger than ours simply because they're working and we're not.

"Which side are you on, which side are you on" You are either with the working class , middle class and the poor or you are with the rich and powerful. Im not sure if you are aware but the Mtea party was founded and funded by extremely wealthy people who only want to destroy unions and working families and end regulations and taxes on their huge corporations . Google the name Koch Brothers or "Americans for Prosperity". This is not a populist party:these nuts want to abolish the minumum wage!! So wake up and pick sides!!

Spoken like a true communist. These giant corporations are in fact greedy and self-serving but they will EMPLOY Americans if they're allowed to. If the federal government taxes them to the point they can't make a profit while employing Americans, they will employ the Chinese. Supporting these giant corporations does in fact seem contrary to the cause of the working man, but it's better to be employed by greedy billionaires than to be unemployed.

Lately I've been thinking that the solution for these giant corporations would be if they were somehow required to be employee-owned. The current method of being owned by super-rich investors who will take their money and invest elsewhere if a corporation isn't making enough of a profit leads to never-ending expansion and belt-tightening. It shouldn't be like that. But government regulation and taxation, and union demands only make things worse. Maybe if these corporations were employee-owned, so the EMPLOYEES get any profits that aren't reinvested in the companies, we'd all be better off.

 

[Jones]

Crashing the Tea Party

By DAVID E. CAMPBELL and ROBERT D. PUTNAM

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics.
But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
The strange thing is that over the last five years, Americans have moved in an economically conservative direction: they are more likely to favor smaller government, to oppose redistribution of income and to favor private charities over government to aid the poor. While none of these opinions are held by a majority of Americans, the trends would seem to favor the Tea Party. So why are its negatives so high? To find out, we need to examine what kinds of people actually support it.
Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.
Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.
On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.
David E. Campbell, an associate professor of political science at Notre Dame, and Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, are the authors of “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.”

 

[Hermes]

Lately I've been thinking that the solution for these giant corporations would be if they were somehow required to be employee-owned.

Yep, sounds good to me comerade. The cold war is over you can cut all the red-scare BS.

I would say Hoffa took it a little far, but no, Tea Party is pretty much anti-union...

"JAMES P. HOFFA, TEAMSTERS, PRESIDENT: We've got a bunch of people there that don't want the president to succeed, and they are called the Tea Party. In November, we will beat the Tea Party and give this country back to workers and America. Everybody here has got to vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong."

 

[menotyou]

I think it was "them sons a bitches!". I practically fell over when I heard it, I was laughing so hard. A guy on Preload calls our center management the same thing.

 

[island1fox]

Tea Partiers are against unions just like republicans

mamirk,

The government collects 2.2 Trillion in taxes and wants more.

I am an American that has always worked hard for myself and family. I do not live the "viva loca" like all the Politicians do DEMOCRAT and Republican.

I know that I am taxed enough already. TEA !!!
I am against government WASTE !!!!

If you can translate that into being against unions ---sounds like you are also part of the problem !!

 

[brett636]

So you want the constitution we have now or the one the "founding fathers" wrote? What is your view on slavery?

You must be one of those who believes the myth that the constitution enhanced or promoted slavery. Allow me to give you a little history lesson.

Many of our most prominent founding fathers did not support slavery even though some were slave owners themselves. I know this must seem hypocritical, and it was to a degree, but for example George Washington owned 300 slaves and wished to free them but feared for a breakup of the many families his slaves comprised of some of which were intermarried with his wife's slaves. He willed that his slaves be freed upon his wifes death and also willed for their future care paid for through his estate.

Many founding fathers made compromises on slavery during the initial constitutional convention because it was well understood that without these compromises this country in its infancy would cease to exist. There would be no United States because the south would refuse to participate. The constitution was however written with the abolishment of slavery in mind. In Article 1 Sec 9 it set a date that Congress could enact a law no earlier than 1808 to ban the importing of new slaves, and on Jan 1. 1808 such a law was enacted. It was Thomas Jefferson that wrote "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence hinting that this new country was not a friend to slavery. Oliver Ellsworth, a signer of the constitution was quoted as stating "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves." Benjamin Franklin also stated "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils." The seeds of the end of slavery were sewn in the founding documents of this country and they did finally bear fruit with the creation of the Republican Party and its anti-slavery message in the mid 1800s.

So to infer that I or anyone who supports the constitution supports slavery or the very idea of it could not be further from the truth. In the current version of the Constitution the parts that even refer to slavery have been voided and no longer apply to the governing of this nation. When I say I support every word in the Constitution I mean it because its a document that outlines specifically the powers of the federal government and how it is it be contained and restrained. The problem is different leaders of both parties would rather use it as toilet paper when it suits them best to ignore it and quote it when it serves their purposes otherwise. I just want it followed as it was intended and written.

 

[bones]

Gingerbread Man, Breatt636,
Those were 2 of the best posts I have ever read on here. My parents were both union memebers for 3 decades or more, they support the Tea Party.

 

[mamirk69]

mamirk,

The government collects 2.2 Trillion in taxes and wants more.

I am an American that has always worked hard for myself and family. I do not live the "viva loca" like all the Politicians do DEMOCRAT and Republican.

I know that I am taxed enough already. TEA !!!
I am against government WASTE !!!!

If you can translate that into being against unions ---sounds like you are also part of the problem !!

I am not remotely the problem. Some people have so many different philosophies on taxed and not being taxed but when the government was at its peak in the mid 90's guess what each individual was highly taxed. The reason it was over looked was because the economy was at its high. Along comes Bush and decides to cut taxes, create unnecessary wars, and low and behold the country is broke. Tax breaks that make the top 1% more wealthier than they already are. Tax breaks to corporations that are now making record profits but not creating jobs. Tax breaks republicans and tea partiers support that has done nothing but drag the overall government down. At the end of the day in order for the government and this country to survive taxes are going to have to be addressed. As to the government waste being against unions I do not remotely see your point. Union waste is when your top tier officials are still receiving raises and additional benefits, having country club style meetings in plush hotels, ridiculous amount of money poured into conventions that should cost a couple hundreds of thousands instead of a couple of millions, subpar contracts, harrassment, and neglect of the contract that translate into waste by the union and that sounds like you might need to get an understanding of our union.

 

[Hermes]

You must be one of those who believes the myth that the constitution enhanced or promoted slavery. Allow me to give you a little history lesson.

Many of our most prominent founding fathers did not support slavery even though some were slave owners themselves. I know this must seem hypocritical, and it was to a degree, but for example George Washington owned 300 slaves and wished to free them but feared for a breakup of the many families his slaves comprised of some of which were intermarried with his wife's slaves. He willed that his slaves be freed upon his wifes death and also willed for their future care paid for through his estate.

Many founding fathers made compromises on slavery during the initial constitutional convention because it was well understood that without these compromises this country in its infancy would cease to exist. There would be no United States because the south would refuse to participate. The constitution was however written with the abolishment of slavery in mind. In Article 1 Sec 9 it set a date that Congress could enact a law no earlier than 1808 to ban the importing of new slaves, and on Jan 1. 1808 such a law was enacted. It was Thomas Jefferson that wrote "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence hinting that this new country was not a friend to slavery. Oliver Ellsworth, a signer of the constitution was quoted as stating "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves." Benjamin Franklin also stated "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils." The seeds of the end of slavery were sewn in the founding documents of this country and they did finally bear fruit with the creation of the Republican Party and its anti-slavery message in the mid 1800s.

So to infer that I or anyone who supports the constitution supports slavery or the very idea of it could not be further from the truth. In the current version of the Constitution the parts that even refer to slavery have been voided and no longer apply to the governing of this nation. When I say I support every word in the Constitution I mean it because its a document that outlines specifically the powers of the federal government and how it is it be contained and restrained. The problem is different leaders of both parties would rather use it as toilet paper when it suits them best to ignore it and quote it when it serves their purposes otherwise. I just want it followed as it was intended and written.

Ok, well personally I see making a law saying that slavery cannot be abolished until a certain date is condoning slavery. Also the whole 3/5 of a person thing and the complete disenfranchisement of the Native population are also flaws I see in the original constitution.

My point is that by nature the constitution can and will change, maybe it will someday be outdated. Many different people with many different beliefs wrote the constitution, maybe someday a better one will be written and it will be outdated.

To group the people who were running the country together and say "these guys are the real America, I'm on their side and you're not" shows a lack of understanding of reality, a need to cling to the doctrine of others, and is a gross misrepresentation of what the spirit of America really is.

 

[gopack]

What about the right for women to vote? Also the Tea Party was formed by the Koch brothers so it's roots are pro corporation. Another big problem with the Tea Party is their top canidates Perry,Bachman,and Palin pander to extremist right wing Christian cults like the New Apolstolic Reformation. We can't afford to have these self appointed apostles and prophets have any power. All I ask is to research the people behind this new cult and find out the crazy and spooky language that spews out of their mouths.

 

[gray squirrel]

Gingerbread Man, you are my hero!!

 

[stevetheupsguy]

she is hot and thats all that matters...lol... besides Barack is no more intelligent

And, no less!

Tea Partiers are against unions just like republicans

Hmmm? Are you saying that Republican's don't have to pay union due's?

 

[Hermes]

You must be one of those who believes the myth that the constitution enhanced or promoted slavery. Allow me to give you a little history lesson.

Many of our most prominent founding fathers did not support slavery even though some were slave owners themselves. I know this must seem hypocritical, and it was to a degree, but for example George Washington owned 300 slaves and wished to free them but feared for a breakup of the many families his slaves comprised of some of which were intermarried with his wife's slaves. He willed that his slaves be freed upon his wifes death and also willed for their future care paid for through his estate.

I'm not ok with this. He owned slaves, he signed a document which supported the idea that people could be counted as 3/5 of a person because of the color of their skin. Those men were waging a war on the native population which in my eyes amounts to genocide.

Many founding fathers made compromises on slavery during the initial constitutional convention because it was well understood that without these compromises this country in its infancy would cease to exist. There would be no United States because the south would refuse to participate. The constitution was however written with the abolishment of slavery in mind. In Article 1 Sec 9 it set a date that Congress could enact a law no earlier than 1808 to ban the importing of new slaves, and on Jan 1. 1808 such a law was enacted. It was Thomas Jefferson that wrote "all men are created equal" in the declaration of independence hinting that this new country was not a friend to slavery. Oliver Ellsworth, a signer of the constitution was quoted as stating "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves." Benjamin Franklin also stated "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils." The seeds of the end of slavery were sewn in the founding documents of this country and they did finally bear fruit with the creation of the Republican Party and its anti-slavery message in the mid 1800s.

The constitution was written to prevent the abolition of slavery until 1808. You're twisting things here I think. Also, I'd just like to say that the republican party of those times was very different from todays.

So to infer that I or anyone who supports the constitution supports slavery or the very idea of it could not be further from the truth. In the current version of the Constitution the parts that even refer to slavery have been voided and no longer apply to the governing of this nation. When I say I support every word in the Constitution I mean it because its a document that outlines specifically the powers of the federal government and how it is it be contained and restrained. The problem is different leaders of both parties would rather use it as toilet paper when it suits them best to ignore it and quote it when it serves their purposes otherwise. I just want it followed as it was intended and written.

So you agree with everything that is in the contitution as it stands today, thats all I was wondering.

Both America and Unions are democratic organizations where every member has an equal say (ideally at least), so you are entitled to your opinion. I think that the Tea Party will say whatever they can to get voters on their side, hence all the different divisions in their ranks. What they seem to agree on is that if we loosen up the restrictions on corporations then we will all be swimming in money and also everyone should own a gun and that will make the world a safer place. I think that if we allow it big biz will continue to infringe on our rights, and I don't want to see this happen for my own sake, that of my fellow workers and future generations. From what I see, it is democratic socialism which got us the things that are good for all American people, and free-market capitalism which allowed a few people to put themselves in a position to exercise control over the lives of others.

 

[whiskey]

I voted for Obama. I also voted for Ralph Nader. So you can thank me for not having President Al Gore.
The tea party is not a threat. The more the merrier. Competition makes us rise to the occassion. These times are a wonderful opportunity for unions. Issues have never been more black and white. Enjoy the ride.

 

[bigblu 2 you]

There is no such thing as the "tea party". It is only the far right wing of the same ol rt wing republican party. They have only rebranded a very unpopular brand right after being beaten by obama in 2008. Dont call them the tea party, call them what they are : the EMPty party. Empty of any sense of history, compassion or reason. And if you are a union worker on here and support these wing nuts, then you are a very confused person!!

thanks for setting me straight on that.i guess you cant read into the sarcasm and humor i was trying to convey.as far as confused i can only say ,we just heard our international president call out a "party" and threaten them with the words"sons of bitches".my complaint is not with any party but with a man who curses TEA PARTY -ERS and then lets corporate america horse whip us and shove production and numbers down our throats daily,yet never tells those "s.o.b.'s"to back off or abide to the contract.what a dog and pony show.just sayin.now who is confused?

 

[mamirk69]

And, no less!

Hmmm? Are you saying that Republican's don't have to pay union due's?

No, what I am saying is Republican politicians do not like unions because the unions support democratic politicians with campaign contributions. Republicans receive their support from big businesses.

 

[brett636]

Ok, well personally I see making a law saying that slavery cannot be abolished until a certain date is condoning slavery. Also the whole 3/5 of a person thing and the complete disenfranchisement of the Native population are also flaws I see in the original constitution.

My point is that by nature the constitution can and will change, maybe it will someday be outdated. Many different people with many different beliefs wrote the constitution, maybe someday a better one will be written and it will be outdated.

To group the people who were running the country together and say "these guys are the real America, I'm on their side and you're not" shows a lack of understanding of reality, a need to cling to the doctrine of others, and is a gross misrepresentation of what the spirit of America really is.

Ok, well I see you have a very poor grasp of the politics of the day to understand that if those compromises were not made this country would not exist. As wrong as it was slavery was just as mainstream then as owning an apple product is today. Changing the minds of the entire country could not be done overnight with a single document at a point in our country's history when it was most vulnerable to disintegration. As i pointed out it was the seeds planted into the Constitution that helped to eventually end slavery, but the founding fathers didn't have to plant them and we should thank god their personal convictions compelled them too anyway.

I'm also troubled by this idea that the Constitution can be considered "outdated". Tell me at what point is freedom of speech, religion, and assembly considered outdated? How about being secure in your person, property, and effects? What about the right to bear arms? I see no point in the future that these can be considered "outdated" ideals, and the very politicians that would try to sell you such a bill of goods is only doing so to increase their own power over you and everyone you know. There are political figures today who's main purpose is to circumvent the god given rights spelled out in the Constitution so that they can become more powerful, more wealthy, and more elite than they are now. Our founding fathers knew this would be true and this is why the Constitution is written as it is so that tyranny has a much harder time finding a foothold in this nation, and by your posts my guess is you support the very politicians who wish to unleash such tyranny on the people. Do not allow yourself to be so foolish and embrace individual rights and freedom as the foundation of this country or accept the bondage your government masters will hand you as the last vestibule of the American dream disappears from sight.

 

[804brown]

thanks for setting me straight on that.i guess you cant read into the sarcasm and humor i was trying to convey.as far as confused i can only say ,we just heard our international president call out a "party" and threaten them with the words"sons of bitches".my complaint is not with any party but with a man who curses TEA PARTY -ERS and then lets corporate america horse whip us and shove production and numbers down our throats daily,yet never tells those "s.o.b.'s"to back off or abide to the contract.what a dog and pony show.just sayin.now who is confused?

You are right on Hoffa bro. All talk no action.

On most of the pro-"tea party" posts, I must say you guys have got to be management or are very confused about reality. Lets see, this cultish group called the "tea party" is aiming to destroy the one entity (unions) that stands up to the powers that be and at times extracts thnigs from them like higher wages, benefits, pensions, etc. But you "tea party" folk bob your heads like good lemmings do. What is it going to take to wake you folks up. When we have a President Perry and a proto-fascist Congress passing legislation to ban private unions as well as public unions because they inpinge on the" liberty" and "freedom" of corporations to make more profits??

And for all those we want "less guvmint" types, when you denying gay people equal rights, tell me is THAT less guvmint?? When you are telling women what to do with THEIR OWN BODIES, is THAT less guvmint?? When you are allowing polluters and refineries to pollute our waters and air in a laise faire manner, is THAT the kind of "less guvmint" you want?? Spending over $1 TRILLION a year on military and security, is THAT less guvmint?? Or what about the illegal wire taps on American citizens such as peace groups??

The type of government that is being pushed by the corporate elite behind the scenes (Koch bros and numerous others) can be scene in what happened to Chile in the 1970s. All government services privatized by a right wing dictator which our government helped put in place (on Sept 11, 1973 no less!!) Well since democracy has been restored, the people of Chile have reversed all those proto-fascist policies. Lets not go through that here!!