Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Tea Party

Lewis

Member
1. What is the Tea Party ?
2. And who here here opposes the Tea Party ?

Tea Party movement

The Tea Party movement is a populist political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests.[1][2][3] The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[4] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[5][6] and a series of health care reform bills.[7]

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773—a protest by American colonists against various acts by the British monarchy which, among other things, attempted to establish a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies by giving a cut on re-importation tax imposed on the East India Company.[8] Tea Party protests have invoked themes, images, and slogans similar to those used during the pre-revolutionary period in American history.[9][10][11]

The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups.[12] The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,[13] lowering taxes,[14] reducing what it considers wasteful spending,[15] reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit,[13]and adhering to the United States Constitution,[16] among other issues. The movement's members have been known to speak out on a wide variety of other issues, such as national defense,[17] illegal immigration,[18] etc.

The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters.[19][20][21] It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[22][23][24][25] More recently, the Libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.

Early local protest events

On January 24th, Trevor Leach and members of the Young Americans for Liberty organized the first "Tea Party" of 2009 after several weeks of planning in response to proposed taxes by New York Governor David Paterson and the federal bailouts of late 2008. Several of the protesters wore indian headdresses similar to the band of 18th century patriots who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes. [30]

New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used.[31] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic[32] and NPR’s Martin Kaste,[33] credit Carender as, "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and state that she "organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests."

Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law.[34] Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[35][36]

Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog.[35] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009, reporting "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."[31] On Tax Day, six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protes

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I apologize in this thread to anyone who thinks I hit and run on posts. I just have a very difficult time logging in. It's hit and miss.

Anyway, I liked the idea of a counter to what has been going on in politics here in the US but I'm afraid the Tea Party might just be a spoiler that messes things up even worse, ala Ross Perot.

I do not however buy into the allegations of it being racist and composed of only white people. A recent poll says that 32% of Black people support the Tea Party.

African American Likely Voters' Support for Tea Party is Significant in Recent Poll - Yahoo! News
 
I am fine with the Tea Party, though I do not consider myself a member nor do I ever think I will consider myself one.

They are just as secular as the liberals all. I mean many of them are Christian, but apart from an opening prayer at most of their rallies there is a stark lack of God. They put God on a back burner and evoke His name in order to garner support from the religious right.

Besides that they are strictly economics, as their name implies. They have no social stance and many of them are socially left, which is unacceptable for me.

So I will support their efforts, but I do not consider myself of their ranks nor will I in the foreseeable future.

I'm fine with what they do and I have been to some of their rallies and I have never seen a racist bone among them. The only racist person there was a liberal with a sign that said something about how the Tea Party is part of the KKK and this guy was very rude and yelled at some black couple and accused them of taking bribes to come and be at this rally.
 
I think its the same as any rally group. Its a bunch of well intentioned people wanting to make a difference, but in the long run its not going to do anything. Its mostly the uninformed public making statements that are over their heads. Heck, that's the majority of all people in general.

I prefer actual discussion in a teaching and debate environment than angry protests. The point of a protest is rally people together and to bring awareness to a problem.

Its been done, now what needs to be done is actual policy making and campaigning. So far, that hasn't been the case.

The racism thing and the anti Obama sentiment is there, it can't be ignored. Its also isn't the central theme. Though you do have to acknowledge that when anyone starts forming a movement that is polarizing, the wakos are going to come out of the woodwork.

The environmentalists have Al gore and veggie people.
Christians have television evangelists and Ted Haggard.
Gays have Priders and Ru Paul
Furries have fur suit fetishists
Metal heads have drunken idiots
Atheists have anti theists
Etc.

It always happens.
 
I oppose the Tea Party. I think it's good that we see democracy in action, and I think it's important that groups like this exist on all areas of the spectrum.

I oppose the Tea Party for two reasons. One is because they seem opposed to the Democrats just because they're Democrats. Just as I would oppose a Leftist party that opposed Republicans just because they're Republicans.

I also oppose the Tea Party becasue I support or don't oppose many of the policies/ideals that they are against or stand for.

Lewis W said:
The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,...
Cutting back the size of the government...why? Becasue you can? This one really annoys me.

... lowering taxes,...
Obviously without any regard for the Business Cycle, or social support and services.

...reducing what it considers wasteful spending,...
It seems what the Tea Party and many other conservatives consider wastefu spending is any spending.

...a reducing the national debt and federal budget defict,...
Yes, I support reducing debt and deficit, but that is a normal part of how economics work, as long as the debt is sustainable and is used for capital investments, national debt is the least of my worries. However I'm not sure how sustainable America's national debt is at present.

...and adhering to the United States Constitution....
True, but you know how I feel about certain parts of the US Constitution.

...The movement's members have been known to speak out on a wide variety of other issues, such as national defense...
I'm not sure what this means. "They speak out on national defense". I assume they want to ramp it up. I'm not necessarily opposed to that.

... illegal immigration
I'd be interested as to what the Tea Party would classify as "illegal immigration". It seems that many political movements and individuals are ill informed.
 
I don't mean to initiate a debate or derail the topic, I am just trying to give Nick some answers and perspective on the points he raised.

I oppose the Tea Party for two reasons. One is because they seem opposed to the Democrats just because they're Democrats.

No, they oppose Republicans also. Look at Alaska for one example, but there are more. I think they generally oppose Democrats because in general the Democrats stand for the things they are against.

Cutting back the size of the government...why? Becasue you can? This one really annoys me.
Strictly speaking of the United States, since the Tea Party is US based, the US Constitution does demand a small and limited government, the current government is overly bloated, if one is to adhere to the documents that this country is founded on. In comparison to say France, or maybe Aussieland, I am sure we would appear as small.

Obviously without any regard for the Business Cycle, or social support and services.
No, actually with these things well in mind. If you have more money you spend more money, it's rather simple. You give a tax cut and BOOM Main Street sees an increase in their income. As for the social services aspect, I really do not want to get into that here... It should suffice to say that there is a lot of useless spending that goes on in that area of government and they could easily tighten their belts without hurting anyone who actually needs their help.

It seems what the Tea Party and many other conservatives consider wastefu spending is any spending.
No, I wouldn't say that. I'd also say it is something you'd have to live in America to see. Example... the stimulus bill closed down highways going into and out of Hartford for three months and all to add a raised divider so they could plant a few trees. That is rather wasteful, especially when the government is accumulating 1 trillion+ in debt last year alone.

Yes, I support reducing debt and deficit, but that is a normal part of how economics work, as long as the debt is sustainable and is used for capital investments, national debt is the least of my worries. However I'm not sure how sustainable America's national debt is at present.
"Sustainable" and "America's Debt" don't even work in the same sentence! I think we are in the 13 trillion range now for debt, we spent nearly 3 trillion int he last year and a half and by 2012 the debt is estimated to have reached 18 trillion, and that is conservative estimate (Slight note, by conservative I do not mean the political spectrum...).

True, but you know how I feel about certain parts of the US Constitution.
Doesn't really matter how one feels, so long as it is the rule of law it has to be adhered to. Their main focus is making sure the politicians who swear to God to uphold the tenants of the Constitution actually do so...


I'm not sure what this means. "They speak out on national defense". I assume they want to ramp it up. I'm not necessarily opposed to that.
Yes, they are in favor of heightened security. The idea being to "walk softly, and carry and big stick". Basically think US pre-WWII. I'd argue post-WWII, but I really do not wish to debate on that.

I'd be interested as to what the Tea Party would classify as "illegal immigration". It seems that many political movements and individuals are ill informed.
I'm assuming they mean the people who illegal cross our borders every day and live in America without a visa or green card or citizenship... Not sure there is any other "illegal immigration", actually. Though that is one nice thing about Aussieland, huh? No borders to defend, they gotta swim through shark infested water if they want to get onto your soil illegally, you guys are lucky.
 
I don't mean to initiate a debate or derail the topic, I am just trying to give Nick some answers and perspective on the points he raised.



No, they oppose Republicans also. Look at Alaska for one example, but there are more. I think they generally oppose Democrats because in general the Democrats stand for the things they are against.

Strictly speaking of the United States, since the Tea Party is US based, the US Constitution does demand a small and limited government, the current government is overly bloated, if one is to adhere to the documents that this country is founded on. In comparison to say France, or maybe Aussieland, I am sure we would appear as small.

No, actually with these things well in mind. If you have more money you spend more money, it's rather simple. You give a tax cut and BOOM Main Street sees an increase in their income. As for the social services aspect, I really do not want to get into that here... It should suffice to say that there is a lot of useless spending that goes on in that area of government and they could easily tighten their belts without hurting anyone who actually needs their help.

No, I wouldn't say that. I'd also say it is something you'd have to live in America to see. Example... the stimulus bill closed down highways going into and out of Hartford for three months and all to add a raised divider so they could plant a few trees. That is rather wasteful, especially when the government is accumulating 1 trillion+ in debt last year alone.

"Sustainable" and "America's Debt" don't even work in the same sentence! I think we are in the 13 trillion range now for debt, we spent nearly 3 trillion int he last year and a half and by 2012 the debt is estimated to have reached 18 trillion, and that is conservative estimate (Slight note, by conservative I do not mean the political spectrum...).

Doesn't really matter how one feels, so long as it is the rule of law it has to be adhered to. Their main focus is making sure the politicians who swear to God to uphold the tenants of the Constitution actually do so...


Yes, they are in favor of heightened security. The idea being to "walk softly, and carry and big stick". Basically think US pre-WWII. I'd argue post-WWII, but I really do not wish to debate on that.

I'm assuming they mean the people who illegal cross our borders every day and live in America without a visa or green card or citizenship... Not sure there is any other "illegal immigration", actually. Though that is one nice thing about Aussieland, huh? No borders to defend, they gotta swim through shark infested water if they want to get onto your soil illegally, you guys are lucky.

I agree with you for the most part...but in you earlier post you said something to the effect of "they use Gods name for gain"...that can't really be said...depends...some could be genuine...and honestly how would you know that?:D

yeah...i'm conservative...and i'm voting for Ron Paul...but i don't think i'm tea party
 
No, you are right. It is a to general of a statement for me to make. What I mean is that they are not God based. They are secular and they admit this. They focus on things that God doesn't wish to trifle over and they leave the things God does care about at the way side.
 
No, you are right. It is a to general of a statement for me to make. What I mean is that they are not God based. They are secular and they admit this. They focus on things that God doesn't wish to trifle over and they leave the things God does care about at the way side.

That's wrong...they should check themselves before they wreck themselves:shame2:nod
 
Thanks for putting some things in persepctive, Pard. I do believe this kind of stuff is found almost exclusively in the US. I look forward to coming over and seeing it :).

I don't wish this to be a debate and derail the thread, so I'll just respectfully disagree with much of what you've said, although I definately agree that the US really nees to consolidate its current financial position.

About illegal immigraiton though (just one quick point). Many people believe that refugees (or asylum seekers) who cross the borders and are legitimately fleeing persecution are illegal immigrants. This is not the case. By international law they are completely legal. Problem is that here in Australia at least, many people want to "stop the boats" and "illegal immigrants" when by far most of them are refugees.
The refugee debate is very hot in Australia (pun intended :D) at the moment, but in the bigger picture it's nothing like yours with Mexico.
 
I think that is more of an issue in your country. We have no problem welcoming the fleeing Cubans, in fact they practically get a parade for making it to America! We set them up with a job and money to get started with their new life and we keep track of them and help them for a given number of years.

In America "illegal immigrant" strictly applies to those who are here without visa or card and have no citizenship and come across the border illegally.

Glad that didn't turn into a debate! I sat there with my mouse in the post button for a minute or so debating whether or not I should go through with it or not!
 
I think that is more of an issue in your country. We have no problem welcoming the fleeing Cubans, in fact they practically get a parade for making it to America! We set them up with a job and money to get started with their new life and we keep track of them and help them for a given number of years.

In America "illegal immigrant" strictly applies to those who are here without visa or card and have no citizenship and come across the border illegally.

Glad that didn't turn into a debate! I sat there with my mouse in the post button for a minute or so debating whether or not I should go through with it or not!
Must be an issue more here then. Well at least it's good to see it's confined to Australia :D

Lots of these refugees don't have visas or paperwork, simply becasue they are so persectued in their country that they aren't able to get them. That's why the process gets more complicated.

But I'm glad this isn't turning into a debate :)
 
While I don't oppose what the Tea Party stands for, I hope they don't "Perot" the election and spoil it for conservatives. :pray

It's bad enough when conservatives lose out on election day without a third party mucking up the waters and pulling from the base.
 
The Democrat party embraces abortion. they also embrace same sex marriages. and many embrace Islam.
 
And we are still talking about the Tea Party, because they embrace none of thee above. And that my friend is my point.
Ok. Was just asking becasue that wasn't mentioned in the OP. Just so you know I would be on the Tea Party's side for those three issues.
 
Lewis

If you look at the tea party candidates you will see that many of them are liberal socially (pro abortion, same sex marriage, ect). The tea party takes no officially stance on this matter and this is why I am opposed to them. They remind me of the Whig party from the 1800s.
 
Lewis

If you look at the tea party candidates you will see that many of them are liberal socially (pro abortion, same sex marriage, ect). The tea party takes no officially stance on this matter and this is why I am opposed to them. They remind me of the Whig party from the 1800s.

Hmmm I have to study this even further, because I don't play that. Or is that just a selected few, because many of them do not believe in that. They even held a rally against them here
Liberal Groups Rally, Challenging Tea Party
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/us/03rally.htm

But it seems that as I read I see that most of the Tea Party is conservative
Abortion And The Tea Party | The New Republic
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, want to know my complete reason why I don't support the Tea party?

Most of the Tea party are originalists, which is hilarious.

Mainly because the original constitution before Adams actually would turn America back about 200 years, but not in a good way.

Here something about the original constitution that should be common knowledge but isn't.

You could only vote if you where a land owning white male.

African Americans/ Blacks/ what ever the term is now where only a third of a person.

Anyone could be denied a contract from the government based on Race, Religion, gender, or original nationality.

Women couldn't vote or hold a job

No Miranda rights, meaning you had no right to have an attorney present at interrogations, violent force could be used on you, No spouse privilege, You are not guaranteed an attorney, and punishment could be cruel and unusual. Such as death penalty for theft.

No more protection against Double Jeopardy.

People can vote your rights away. Lets say a low Black poplation state such as Indiana decides it wants to make it illegal for Blacks to own businesses and bring back segregation. Without the 9th amendment, we can do that. And before you guys tell me that it will never happen. The most liberal state in the union voted away the rights of Gays to marry. Just watch, some will bring back segregation if they thought it would make them safer.

Slavery still legal

Unlimited terms for a President

Oh yeah, poll taxes and voting tests come back

Oh, and even if you owned land, there is no guarantee you could vote because each state could define what age you vote at.



So yeah, you'd get rid of income tax and get rid of all those social programs and regulations, but then we'd be back to how we where 200 years ago. I think no.
 
Back
Top