The title of this is really... strange. The Tea partiers were always conservatives, they were always nothing but a front for rebranding Republicans, they were always funded by right-wing groups, they were always organized by Fox News... There was no "take over," they've just always been ignorant and wrong.I find it strange that liberals tend to be on the side of most everything discussed in this video: legalizing drugs, ending the war, supporting gay marriage, separation of church and state, abortion rights...Very odd indeed.
Nothing odd about the libertarian position...It's everything about liberals that is useful and reasonable, anti-war, and pro-carrot/less-stick on finance, all wrapped in actual less government.And for the record the tea-party stuff actually started under the libertarian and liberal factions of the Ron Paul/internet support...The neocons and Fox disinformation later locked on like a parasite and started killing it...It is not odd that some items liberals and libertarians agree - it was never that big of a divide it is just that the anti-government position does not want to make the "goodness" of the liberals nor the "morality" of the "fake conservatives" mandatory by decree (the general statist position).
I don't find the Libertarian position odd, I find it odd that most Libertarians seem to "lean right," usually voting Republican. Most Libertarians I know harbor far more dislike for Democrats, even though there's no economic difference between Democrats and Republicans: both are for redistributing wealth into the hands of a few at the top.And no, the Tea Party was started by Fox News correspondents and funded by conservative groups like FreedomWorks. Libertarians may have tried to be a part of it, and Ron Paul spoke at early events (perhaps hoping for the best), but it was never about Libertarians. I assure you, there's no evidence for more than a few hundred (maybe a thousand) people gathering together before Fox News got involved.
"I assure you, there's no evidence for more than a few hundred (maybe a thousand) people gathering together before Fox News got involved."So because the start was small, somehow that translates to the hijacking of this by neocons as "the neocons started it"?Isn't that like saying there was no life before sponges because single cell life didn't count...I am saying that the current idiots in the "tea party" are not the same as the "true believers" that started what would become a Glenn Beck cluster fuck.I do not discount that the current "tea party" is a total neocon love-fest and full of the worst sort of religious control freaks, it was lost a long, long, time ago...I find it odd people cannot see how it was hijacked... And "conservative" libertarians is not odd - they are the "dope-smoking-republican-yuppie" wing that makes most of us sick... (I say "us" only as a small "l" supporter of libertarianism and not a Libertarian).
Fox watched the November "money bomb" and activated into full swing at about that point trying to wiggle a position when they recognized something was "up". Don't mistake me for a Fox watcher or supporter I'm not that stupid, but then I'm not stupid enough to trust any of the big network brainwashing outfits.
It wasn't called "The Tea Party," it didn't get news coverage, no one had heard of it... if Fox News didn't give birth to it, it adopted it as an infant.The whole thing is contrived. There were protests before Obama even took office. So, let's assume it's actually a grassroots movement... it's baseless complaining and so reactionary that it's actually pre-reactionary (i.e. complaining for the sake of complaining). I know this doesn't mean it wasn't "hijacked," but if a large group of psychos takes over where a small group of psychos left off, I wouldn't call it a hijacking so much as I would say it reached its logical conclusion.If it makes you feel better to imagine that Americans came together to hate a guy before he was even sworn in, I'll pretend with you. The Tea Party certainly may have captured that "I'm a stupid American" vibe in a very organic way, but I still find it to be astroturf, not a grassroots movement. I think Fox News was grabbing for straws the moment Obama was elected, and they were demonizing things Bush signed into law (so long as it was after the election and might seem to the average idiot viewer to be attributed to Obama).The Tea Party was certainly never about legalizing drugs or keeping abortion legal. It also wasn't about ending the war (remember how Obama was supposedly going to do that?). It was mostly about the perennial truth that people will always complain about taxes, though don't you dare think of taking away old people's Medicare or ending the wars.On another note, I don't even know the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. I usually just default to lower case unless talking about the organized Libertarian party. Maybe that's right, but I could be wrong.
"It wasn't called "The Tea Party," it didn't get news coverage, no one had heard of it... if Fox News didn't give birth to it, it adopted it as an infant."The "tea party" part was there, it was a support movement and a few actions for the Ron Paul supporters, and yes Fox kidnaped that baby as early as they could and turned it...Most Ron Paul supporters and libertarians did see it became a contrived load of shit and abandoned it quickly allowing the religious fascist like that hack Beck control of the idiots that just could not understand what was going on...I am not a supporter of the "tea party" never was not even in the very start when it was obvious that it was going to turn sour...In the beginning it was a protest against Bush and others like McCain, so yes it changed quite a bit, and it had nothing to do with Obama in the start and yes it did have in the start the libertarian part that was very anti-war, anti-soccial security, anti-DOE and other libertarian points they quickly took off.People not understanding the real libertarians v. the "Yuppie dope smoking republican pukes" is difficult when hacks like Beck "claim" to be libertarian and don't understand any of it...
The Tea Party never once protested Bush or McCain, sorry. There's many claimed beginnings (Rick Santelli's rant, Trevor Leach's protests against Gov. Paterson in NY, Keli Carender's "Porkulus" protest in Seattle, to name a few), none of which are aimed at criticizing the right, Republicans, conservatives, or really anything but Democrats and taxes.There will be difficulty in nailing anything down for certain, because there was decentralized bitching going on the minute Obama was elected. Social networking sites, blogs, youtube, and other online methods of communication were instrumental in keeping all of the complaints focused on the same thing by giving the whiners a unified message to co-opt.If anything, "The Tea Party Movement" hijacked this undercurrent of distaste for Obama and taxes, well before Obama went and lowered taxes for middle and lower class households (which is why the whole movement is largely viewed as nothing but bunk to independent observers). There were complaints before there was anything to complain about, and there was a name attached to the movement by the time anyone who was not exposed to it online ever heard about it.If there was ever some sort of purity (I hesitate to even use this term) in the movement, it was for a very brief period of time after Obama was actually in power and before Fox branded it "The Tea Party." I think even this was largely an unsubstantiated over-reaction to losing the election to Democrats and the hysterical fear surrounded the dystopian results being played out in the creative minds of over-caffeinated yuppies.And if you were not a Tea Partier, you must have the same ability I have that warned me about Obama, that sixth (or possibly seventh) sense that it's usually too good to be true.
Nikk weighed in on it in July 2009, here.
What I am trying to point out is that what the "tea party originated from and what it is now are not only not the same they do not even contain the same ideas or goals.What the "tea party" originated from was most surely anti-war and anti-bush yes it was very small and I would not be surprised that you would not have seen it on the national media it was hated by the republicans and democrats.I don't think there was ever any "purity" in this it was quickly co-opted by the neocons, and was never anything that could be called a "party" the organic progression was hijacked - it was that simple.Not only was I never a "tea party" supporter I spent the entire time bush the retarded was elected from day one bitching about that stupid neocon puppet. As for Obama, I am just tired, I would have been surprised if there had been any "change" as he had his own neocon "bona fides" when they were grooming him for the election - and it is all too bad it would be nice to have a real "left".What that sack of crap called the "tea party" originated from was mid to late 2007...I don't have any special "sense" about politics just a simple rule - state and above level politics are completely corrupt - the end.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.