NY Times describes Tea Party members as civic minded and religious.

[gsvol]

Oh wait, they were talking about the moslem brotherhood.

MY BAD.

 

[VOLatile]

Neither are very civic-minded, both are highly religious.

 

[NEO]

Neither are very civic-minded, both are highly religious.

Tell me why we are not civic minded?

Because we donate most of our money to our local church and trust that our church will do more good with it than the government?

You made a very bold statement. Back it up now.

 

[MG1968]

the Rick Santelli-inspired Tea Party movement wasn't about social issues, it was focused on the economic idiocy of the Obama administration. Even through the elections last year, it didn't seem as if it had a particularly religious tone, although it's message had been getting increasingly muddied by social conservatives who were feeling a bit left out in the cold.

 

[joevol320]

Tell me why we are not civic minded?

Because we donate most of our money to our local church and trust that our church will do more good with it than the government?

You made a very bold statement. Back it up now.

volitile is a sheep, he's not going to back anything up. he's too ignorant to understand what the tea party movement is about.

 

[sjt18]

Neither are very civic-minded, both are highly religious.

The TP is VERY civic minded. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[sjt18]

the Rick Santelli-inspired Tea Party movement wasn't about social issues, it was focused on the economic idiocy of the Obama administration. Even through the elections last year, it didn't seem as if it had a particularly religious tone, although it's message had been getting increasingly muddied by social conservatives who were feeling a bit left out in the cold.

There is a reason that most economic conservatives end up being social conservatives or libertarians (in the true "stay out of my business sense"). Both start from a common philosophical premise and advance logically to conclusions. If you start with the premise that man is sovereign before his creator and entitled to certain "inalienable" RIGHTS including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property... then you logically derive that people should not have their wealth confiscated or their lives snuffed out by abortion. You believe in rule of law rather than rule of men (ie the current debate over judicial philosophies on the Constitution). Individuals have rights, not groups.

The same premise and logical system of progression leads to the belief in religious freedom in the public square leads to the logical conclusion that businesses should not be subject to legalized extortion by unions.

It may not be a "necessary" coupling of ideals but it is a logically consistent one.

 

[lawgator1]

the Rick Santelli-inspired Tea Party movement wasn't about social issues, it was focused on the economic idiocy of the Obama administration. Even through the elections last year, it didn't seem as if it had a particularly religious tone, although it's message had been getting increasingly muddied by social conservatives who were feeling a bit left out in the cold.

You keep invoking Santelli's rant in a painfully transparent effort to distance the TP from some of its less savory roots.

One big problem for you: The TP existed for about a year before the rant.

 

[MG1968]

You keep invoking Santelli's rant in a painfully transparent effort to distance the TP from some of its less savory roots.

One big problem for you: The TP existed for about a year before the rant.

how so? The Santelli rant was in 2009, a few months after Obama's inauguration and a few weeks after the legislative abortion known as "the stimulus bill."

 

[lawgator1]

how so? The Santelli rant was in 2009, a few months after Obama's inauguration and a few weeks after the legislative abortion known as "the stimulus bill."

Went and researched it and looks like Tea Party began in January 2009 while Santelli's first rant was in mid-February of 2009. So while I was wrong about it being a year later, you are wrong to suggest that Santelli is the source of the Tea Party.

Not saying his sentiments about government don't coincide with the TP, but constantly referring to it as caused by Santelli's rant is a bit misleading. jmo

 

[droski]

you maybe can give him credit for the naming, but he had little to do with the actual movement. it's pretty funny considering how liberal cnbc is though.

 

[MG1968]

ok, I got the origins wrong. point taken. however, I'm still correct when I state that the purpose of the Tea Party was economic, not social. Social conservatives joined up late and their involvement in California, Nevada and Delaware are likely the reason why the democrats won vital elections in those states.

 

[lawgator1]

ok, I got the origins wrong. point taken. however, I'm still correct when I state that the purpose of the Tea Party was economic, not social. Social conservatives joined up late and their involvement in California, Nevada and Delaware are likely the reason why the democrats won vital elections in those states.

Agree to disagree, at least in part, on this one.

 

[lawgator1]

you maybe can give him credit for the naming, but he had little to do with the actual movement. it's pretty funny considering low liberal cnbc is though.

I pause on that station from time to time to see if they are in the midst of one of their debates and enjoy it when they do. Because they aren't political commentators they really go after each other and are pretty clever sometimes and I think they believe what they are saying. Santelli got so much attention for his rant that one time that he sometimes seems to me to be reaching, trying to recreate the moment, but its not too over the top and its still an interesting discussion, usually.

 

[droski]

I pause on that station from time to time to see if they are in the midst of one of their debates and enjoy it when they do. Because they aren't political commentators they really go after each other and are pretty clever sometimes and I think they believe what they are saying. Santelli got so much attention for his rant that one time that he sometimes seems to me to be reaching, trying to recreate the moment, but its not too over the top and its still an interesting discussion, usually.

santelli isn't all that bright. if he's the conservative voice on that network we can assume CNBC is doing that for a reason. fasani in particular (their senior economics reporter) is ridiculously biased and liberal. no coincidence he always breaks obama's economic news first. most of the non liberal people from cnbc have moved to fox business.

 

[sjt18]

This thread is just more proof that LG neither knows or understands the Tea Party or any other genuine, grass roots, think for yourself type of politcal movement. They ARE what liberals have wished they could get for years... an uprising of the people based on a very good grasp and understanding of the issues.

If polls can be believed, there are as more Americans either actively involved with the TP or strongly supportive of it than there are total people identifying themselves as liberal. Usually ignorant fear is to be dismissed... but LG has a real reason to fear the TP. They are too large to have a single face that the left can demonize... though they've tried to construct one for that very purpose. They are too sincere to be intimidated by left wing demagogues. They demographically "look like America". They are educated and successful. They are the left's worst nightmare come true.