drsmooth wrote:You seem eager to establish "right" and "wrong" here (e.g., advising TV & me that "you're both wrong" about our view of the Anon's remarks about Rand & the teapots).

I'm not convinced you can do that, unequivocally.

I actually deleted my post beacuse I didn't like how I handled my response upon reflection. I do this about 20 times a week.

In this case, I stand by my assertion that TV's reply (that you attached yourself to) represents a demonstrably false understanding of the Tea Party, or at least a sizable portion of it. Maybe we can get into a good old fashioned internet minced words argument about what the meaning of "rank and file" is, but the TP/Rand connection is significant enough that I can't imagine dismissing it as if it isn't there (or not recognizing the connection when it is brought to one's attention).

I believed that you wouldn't have made your assumption that the author was equating Rand to conservatives had you known how popular Rand was among the TP's. I guess I am wrong.

In the end, I think that you are saying that you did know this yet maintain your assumption that he equates Rand with "Real Conservatives". I agree that this is preposterous, but this is also why I don't believe that the author is making the comparison.

But you are right - we simply disagree.

The mistake all of us are probably making is to assume there is a single set of issues that unite all those who are attaching themselves to something that calls itself "The Tea Party Movement." What I find when I google Tea Party are numerous distinct URLs. If I were to click on them, I'd probably find "strands of similarity" but I'd probably find lots of differences. When you add that to the fact that there are lots of people who consider themselves sympathetic to Tea Party ideas but haven't officially signed on to an organization, you have a great deal of diversity. And then, you've got several beltway organizations that have attempted to co-opt the tea parties and well, it's just a sort of dumb discussion.

That's why I think most individuals who are supportive of the tea parties aren't Objectivists, at least in Arkansas. They're more likely to be people who are Huckabee/Palin supporters. This of course puts them not to distant from mainstream Republican politics.

Werthless wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:I don't think it's really that difficult. Tea Party was born in response to "healthcare reform", where any kind of "healthcare reform" = socialism/collectivism/euro-unamerican. Opponents to any kind of "healthcare reform" played the socialism/collectivism card, play on the fears of losing liberty and freedom, to garner the support of Joe and Jane Sixpack for their opposition. Now, it isn't just HCR but any kind of deviation from the status quo by the Omama Admn/democrats gets painted with the "government telling you what to do/socialism/collectivism" brush. The right is still using fear politics, but nowadays it's more "socialism/collectivism" than "9/11 terrorism". "9/11 terrorism" wasn't effective in 2008 and the Obama cult of personality cost them the WH so they needed to re-tool the fear politics to try and retain the fold. You gotta admit, fear politics works. For crying out loud, they were able to get hard working poor and middle class folks to side with the positions of fat 'n' bloated big insurance and pharma consumerism.

The first tea party protest was in late 2008, and the movement gained steam as a response to the TARP bill passed by Bush/Dems in Congress and then the stimulus bill. They started calling themselves tea-partiers in January 2009. Health reform wasn't on the radar at that time.

According to FreedomWorks, the first protest of what became the tea party movement was a February 2009 local protest in Fort Myers Florida, tabbed as "the first protest of the Obama administration". About a month later, a regional protest of the stimulus bill occurred, and around this timeframe it started getting national attention when Chicago derivative traders organized a "tea party" in response to the "mortgage bailout". This was around the same time Obama announced his intent for healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress (Feb 2009). While "the movement" was initially more segmented due to differing motives, there was a convergance (due to timing of events) with HCR as the unifying catalyst and the right siezed the opportunity to go "all in" with the socialism fear politics.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:I don't think it's really that difficult. Tea Party was born in response to "healthcare reform", where any kind of "healthcare reform" = socialism/collectivism/euro-unamerican. Opponents to any kind of "healthcare reform" played the socialism/collectivism card, play on the fears of losing liberty and freedom, to garner the support of Joe and Jane Sixpack for their opposition. Now, it isn't just HCR but any kind of deviation from the status quo by the Omama Admn/democrats gets painted with the "government telling you what to do/socialism/collectivism" brush. The right is still using fear politics, but nowadays it's more "socialism/collectivism" than "9/11 terrorism". "9/11 terrorism" wasn't effective in 2008 and the Obama cult of personality cost them the WH so they needed to re-tool the fear politics to try and retain the fold. You gotta admit, fear politics works. For crying out loud, they were able to get hard working poor and middle class folks to side with the positions of fat 'n' bloated big insurance and pharma consumerism.

The first tea party protest was in late 2008, and the movement gained steam as a response to the TARP bill passed by Bush/Dems in Congress and then the stimulus bill. They started calling themselves tea-partiers in January 2009. Health reform wasn't on the radar at that time.

According to FreedomWorks, the first protest of what became the tea party movement was a February 2009 local protest in Fort Myers Florida, tabbed as "the first protest of the Obama administration". About a month later, a regional protest of the stimulus bill occurred, and around this timeframe it started getting national attention when Chicago derivative traders organized a "tea party" in response to the "mortgage bailout". This was around the same time Obama announced his intent for healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress (Feb 2009). While "the movement" was initially more segmented due to differing motives, there was a convergance (due to timing of events) with HCR as the unifying catalyst and the right siezed the opportunity to go "all in" with the socialism fear politics.

I really think anti-stimulus and anti-bailout is really more of an animating force than anti-HCR, at least at the moment.

It's important to note that at least some tea parties are getting funding and organizational support from Amercians for Prosperity, which is far from a grass roots organization. And it's not like they're hiding it. Oh, and they really seem to love Glenn Beck at this one.

http://www.arkansasteaparty.com/

These people, by contrast, are all about defending BP it seems.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default ... e=Arkansas

Not much about liberty at either of these places if you ask me.

TenuredVulture wrote:These people, by contrast, are all about defending BP it seems.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default ... e=Arkansas

Well, the original tea party resulted in polluted waters...

So, this Michelle Bachmann is fucking retarded, right?

VoxOrion wrote:In the end, I think that you are saying that you did know this yet maintain your assumption that he equates Rand with "Real Conservatives". I agree that this is preposterous, but this is also why I don't believe that the author is making the comparison.

You have the nub of it right here. Permit me to belabor the point, regarding the issue of Anon. making that comparison. Look again:

1) Unlike most of the tired, airbrushed conservatives living in D.C., 2) the homegrown activists I work with are the real deal.

A: the homegrown activists are "real conservatives".

3) They may not read much, but they all know their Ayn Rand.

B: "real conservatives" "know their Ayn Rand".

For what reason would Anon couple those sentences, if not to underscore that he equates the two?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabMEHfCjT0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

"LOOK AT ME I HOLD A GUN!! IM LIKE YOU!!! IM A REAL MAN"

The gun bit isn't subtle. But there's a more signficant anti-agribusiness message in that ad that's pretty important.

Don't steal yard signs?

I went to Rutgers with this Republican operative thug kid (covered in tats, favorite band: Rage Against the Machine) from one of the southern counties in the state. He gave me a whole lecture on his opinion of the art and legality of stealing signs and how it is illegal to have yard signs in most neighborhoods in his county so it isn't illegal for him to steal them or some such. It was kind of funny in an Animal House goof-ball kind of way.

joe barton apologizes to tony hayward for only being able to spend part of weekend at yacht race.

oh geez

Thisis basically why I can't bring myself to engage much on political questions anymore:

Democrats in the House of Representatives said on Monday that they would agree to a Senate plan to make a proposed financial consumer watchdog part of the Federal Reserve, instead of an independent agency.

In a retreat by the House on one of the most contentious parts of the Wall Street reform legislation, Representative Barney Frank said the House would go along with the Senate’s plan to make the watchdog a part of the central bank.
...
The House approved a bill in December that would have made the watchdog an independent agency with more autonomy than was proposed in a parallel Senate bill.

The House also said it wants to add certain exclusions to the watchdog proposal for auto dealers and pawnbrokers.

Because, hey, it's not like auto dealers and pawnbrokers ever tried to take advantage of informational assymmetries and just bend their customers over.

I'm really starting to think our problems aren't fixable, at least not with the rot we've allowed to take hold in the system. And it isn't really a partisan thing, though it's only ever presented that way.

Alvin Greene Wants to Be Time's "Man of the Year"

"I am the best candidate for the United States Senate in South Carolina," Greene told Scherer. "And I am also the best person to be Time magazine's Man of the Year."

Rockinghorse wrote:

Like the oil gushing into the GOM, Sarah Palin's stupidity seems to have no end. Why do lawmakers need to set a specific day aside to pray for a solution to the crisis? Does she really think that the people in that region, who are among the most God-fearing people in the country, have not been praying for a solution for 63 days now? I would guess many people who live nowhere near that region have been praying for an end to the disaster for 63 days now. Seriously, could there be a more aptly-named forum for Palin to share her thoughts?

Are you sure that's really Sarah Palin?