Signs of the Times by dreamtrove

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hee, hee, hee; I get a kick out of people who carry signs that so obviously show their ignorance and illiteracy when they're trying to make a point!

Bummer about the photoshopped signs, but they were all amusing anyway and I enjoyed them.

Uh, don't trees turn brown any time Hannity speaks? I thought his hot air was at fault...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This one's a real kick: wasn't there something about people voting who couldn't spell "vote"?

And here's a typical Fox News viewer, reflecting Fox News' intelligence:

Now who's incompetent?

This one gets the prize for TWO misspellings at once!

What's with these people?? They can't even spelling their talking points?

Another one I pray doesn't want to homeschool his kids:

Gawd help our stundents!

Wasn't someone crowing about Tea Partiers being better educated than the general population?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually the one that amused me there doesn't seem to be a picture of - there were a bunch of girls in their sunday best with a sign saying "It was our Tea Party first and we want it back now."

I found it ironic in that our kids are more civilized than we are, and what does THAT say about our society ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

How about some more? Appears the Tea Party wants a new language in America: "Teabonics"

Quote:

Teabonics: A new dialect of the English language created by sign wielders at Tea Party protests. Some call it 'creative spelling,' others call it carelessness. Either way, it's pretty amusing.

This sign deserves an A for effort. Look how straight those lines are!

Everyone raise your plungers...plumbers...plummers!

This is what happens when you sleep through Social Studies class:

Homeschooled?

Ah, the great schizm between Are Country and Their Country (or should that be There Country?)

This could go on forever...and says an awful lot about Tea Party supporters..."Well, it's true"...and amusing as hell.

That was fun...remember, THESE are the people who voted in "your" candidates (who are justa about as dumb!)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:57 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

OMG this thread is soo cute...

Keep it up

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, I could, Wulf, for ages...your "people" appear to be hysterically illiterate. There are tons more; so let's see misspelled signs from the Stewart/Colbert rally...I dare you!

Which begs the question: Which "side" is more literate/smarter/better educated? Three "geusses"

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:45 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, I could, Wulf, for ages...your "people" appear to be hysterically illiterate. There are tons more; so let's see misspelled signs from the Stewart/Colbert rally...I dare you!

Which begs the question: Which "side" is more literate/smarter/better educated? Three "geusses"

Hint: Whichever side Wulf is on, the other side is automatically smarter/better/more literate.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:59 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually the one that amused me there doesn't seem to be a picture of - there were a bunch of girls in their sunday best with a sign saying "It was our Tea Party first and we want it back now."

I haven't seen that one, but it made me think of this one:

Toooo cute.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it becomes yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 6:37 PM

Frem,

In my ultra-cynical way I said it means smart people exploit children ;)

Probably they read it on the twitters, someone twitted them something on the textphones.

I swear, our politicians are fucking ignorant to the last. Guys, Twitter, tweet, cell phones, texting and SMS. It's not that hard. Also, Internet is also singular.

I see one of these every other day from some elected official. It's really impressive. And, almost as often, but not quite, from our media ninnies.

So yeah, it's a foregone conclusion that our kids are smarter.

Phoenix Rose,

I saw that sign, and I'm co-opting that line for my take back the tea party.

Wulf,

Instead of whining, post some illiterate signs from liberals. There are many of them.

Niki

One of your sign pics is in sepiatone. If it's from the Tea Party, it might be the original ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:18 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I saw that sign, and I'm co-opting that line for my take back the tea party.

Um, no offense DT, but it's really only cute when little girls do it.

Quote:
One of your sign pics is in sepiatone. If it's from the Tea Party, it might be the original ;)

I'd say that it's clearly newsprint, yellowed newsprint from the coloration. Sepia has a slightly deeper, richer brown tone to it. (Yes, I do realize a joke was being made, but at the moment photo and color analysis is what I do.) I have, however, seen that photo before, several years ago. I don't know which protest it's actually from.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it becomes yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:40 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

That's pretty bad that the Asian girl had almost had a "hard woking" sign.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:24 AM

KANEMAN

The meaning in all those signs is not lost in bad spelling.....And that be da truf...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 4:12 AM

Phoenix

Little girls aren't that rare. Several people seem to have found them. to hold signs

Dmaan

You have a point, the kid obvious made the wroking sign, and shouldn't be mocked

Kane

Yes they made they're point "We're morons, and this is what we stand for. At least now you know which side is ignorant." Or perhaps ignant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well they certainly hold more civilized tea parties, which is the entire point of it.

Oh, and mind you - I find the expressed idea that children don't have their own opinion a little grating, since I was banging out letters to the editor, and not a lot later, editorials, on a tiny mechanical typewriter which I found in a relatives attic.
http://www.etsy.com/listing/18806834/vintage-typewriter-smith-corona-a
qua
WHEN I WAS TWELVE.
(little did any of those editors know this, until much, much later)

The idea that kids might not have their own opinion is thus, kind of a nitpick with me, you might imagine, and given that the essential "message" here is "don't be so mean!", I fail to understand where you think a little girl wouldn't come up with that on her own, or wouldn't necessarily hold that opinion without an adult handing it to them.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:57 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The meaning in all those signs is not lost in bad spelling.....And that be da truf...

True. But it does add a second layer of meaning - the person holding the sign is an idiot, and not worth paying attention to.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:58 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Also, it really holds an entirely different meaning when little girls say they're taking back tea party. Which is part of what makes it cute, of course. But if you're talking about 'taking back' the tea party movement... Yeah, no. The movement is crazy. The little girls with their tea sets and dolls are adorable. And they should have that back, without being associated with the movement. I like to think that was all unnecessary explanation of a really giggle-inducing sign, but clearly explanation was needed, even if it does always ruin jokes.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it becomes yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:00 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The idea that kids might not have their own opinion is thus, kind of a nitpick with me, you might imagine, and given that the essential "message" here is "don't be so mean!", I fail to understand where you think a little girl wouldn't come up with that on her own, or wouldn't necessarily hold that opinion without an adult handing it to them.

Kids by and large don't give a tiny little shit about politics, nor do they understand enough of what's going on to have an opinion worthwhile in that arena. I talk to teens every day, and on the rare occasion that they do talk politics, 90% of the time they are just repeating what their parents say, and generally will freely admit to this.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:54 PM

Frem,

it's not that kids don't have political ideas, I've known some really sharp kids. I knew a ten year old who would've made a great senator...

It's that parents aren't likely to let them go to a rally to support their own political agenda. Hell, I had to spout the family line 'til I left for college.

And, of course, I was being cynical. Lighten up a little ;)

Wulf,

it displays ignorance.

Story,

What Frem said. Kids do understand politics. People think politics is some big sophisticated thing that's intellectually high above what goes on in kids lives, and they think kids are dumb. Actually, politics is a lot like the social struggles of kids, and kids are pretty smart. What they don't have is the collection of facts and ideas that you accumulate over time, but then again, most voters never seem to acquire them.

Phoenix,

The Tea Party movement may have crazies in it, but it's political ideology is basically the only set of political ideals that we on this board share. Aside from thinking that westerns in space are cool.

I'll keep posting this until people watch it, this was the first tea party post I believe, on 11/11/07, after Ron Paul's announcement on 11/05/07 of the Tea Party fund raiser for 11/16/07

FOX News changed the name of the *movement* from "revolution" to "Tea Party" because as conservatives it made them much more comfortable.

People say "Oh, this is a totally different group of people." It's not. The people I know who were in the Ron Paul Revolution, who went to the meetings, they are now in the Tea Party. Yes, other people are too, it has grown. Some of them may be ignorant racists, but honestly, and no offense Wulf, but Wulf is the closest thing to a media stereotype of a Tea Partier that I have seen.

I got the meaning, I thought it was cute. I also think that the image has to be a lot more light hearted. People who take themselves seriously may win or lose but they have no fun.

I'd much rather be a part of something fun and lose, then be like Dick Cheney, work 24/7 for my whole life for the ability to change things for what he *really* does believe is the better, only to wind up bitter, old and wrong.

The main difference I see in between the Tea Party as it is today and the Ron Paul Revolution where it started is that it's taking itself a lot more seriously, and having a lot less fun. Politically, I think there's relatively little change, and sure, I'll admit that the changes I see I find worrisome. This was not about opposing Mosque construction or patrolling the border. This is about an economy run on debt, and a political system that is completely beholden to international financiers because of that.

But what I'm saying is, we should be serious in our opposition, but there's no need to be so maudlin in our attitude about how we go about opposing it.

Think about it this way: The democratic party seems capable of losing almost anything, and they're always dead serious in their attitude and in their political meetings in my experience. They are filled with anger. This is a major mistake the tea party is making right now: There's a lot of anger out there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The meaning in all those signs is not lost in bad spelling.....And that be da truf...

True. But it does add a second layer of meaning - the person holding the sign is an idiot, and not worth paying attention to.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!! Story for the WIN!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Pfftth, I would have to say "quit being so mean" *IS* a political idea, AND it's one a child could indeed come up with, AND it has in my opinion a pretty solid validity.

I'm not dimissing your argument out of pique, I want you to understand that a call for civility is well within their understanding, and while their parents might have an agenda different than that, the kid holding the sign knows what THEY mean.

Nor do I jest whatever about children in general being more civilized than we are - remember you're talkin to someone who gets regularly (and often with cause) called out on their own behavior by them, despite many of them having experienced some pretty rough treatment themselves.

So yeah, I find a call for civil behavior entirely credible in this instance, and I, like PR, feel a little miffed that I would have to explain it to fellow adults, who for all our supposed superiority, often as not behave WORSE than the kids we're supposed to be setting an example for.

ETA: It's also a matter of trust, and what affects THEM, specifically - when you have no say, it's kind of hard to care, and when you have to hold a certain "party line" to get by, it comes around to what I call the Corn-Pone theory.
"You tell me where a man gets his corn-pone, I'll tell ya what his politics are!"

But they DO hold their own opinions, on what matters to or affects THEM, but for a multitude of very good reasons are generally disinclined to discuss them with adults - start talkin about the budget or some obscure economic proposal, their eyes will gloss right over, but start talkin about a measure that hits THEM, like asking a sixteen year old about the introduction of a graduated license program which just cost him his part time job...
(due to not being able to drive past a certain hour)

Oh believe me, you'll hear an opinion on it!

And even a six year old after watching people yell at each other and use bad words and get real angry is gonna think "this is stupid, people shouldn't be so mean" - so within their experience, things that affect them, yeah, they DO have their own opinions, and to assume otherwise cause they play along with you to appease a society with tremendous power over them, yet no respect for them....

A mistake, that is.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 4:10 PM

Frem,

Of course you know I know all this. Not only have I been a child, which is an excellent experience in the subject for those who remember it, but also I did what you do for years.

I am capable of jesting. But it's also true that as a child when part of my family I was coerced into supporting the family position. Most people I know were.

I've made this radical position many times:

Get rid of the voting age.

Most kids can make informed decisions, and most adults can but choose not to. If a child can't, and the adult tells the child what they think is in their best interests and that effects their vote, well that's probably just as valid as anything else. I mean how many people just voted for something because they couldn't think for themselves and Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin told them how to vote?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 4:53 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The Tea Party movement may have crazies in it, but it's political ideology is basically the only set of political ideals that we on this board share.

I'm not so sure about that...

HRWATPWRTCITG

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 4:54 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

If Ken Buck was endorsed by the Tea Party (he was) and that's any indicator of ideology... Yeah, no.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it becomes yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 5:55 PM

You want to know the Tea Party's true motivations? Their real ideology? You want to meet the REAL Tea Party? Look to the neo-con agenda. It's all right there.

Need more to go on? Need a little more insight into what they want, where they're headed, what their ultimate goal is?

Watch "Network". This was all foretold 35 years ago...

Quote:
Arthur Jensen: [bellowing] You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immune, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE!

[calmly] Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those *are* the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Howard Beale: Why me?

Arthur Jensen: [dismissively] Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Howard Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Arthur Jensen: [smiling] You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

Why else do you think the Tea Partiers here so loudly applauded the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling? Because it further corporatizes us, commodifies us ever further. For Republicans and Tea Partiers (TeaBaglicans™), it's even more than that. There are no PEOPLE - what we used to call "people" and "individuals" are now considered "human resources", just another resource for the corporation to use up and toss aside.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 6:49 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 3:50 AM

I think what you're all missing is that I just posted its mission statement. You don't need to guess.

All I was saying is that the mission statement is pretty similar to ours.

Sure, it can be hijacked and has been, which was already mentioned and the topic of several threads. In fact, that fact is the reason that it's being discussed at all.

I understand the lurkers not getting this, but Mike, you were there when we discussed it.

ETA: Also, that's nonsense. Ron Paul's agenda is the antithesis of the neocon agenda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think what you're all missing is that I just posted its mission statement. You don't need to guess.

All I was saying is that the mission statement is pretty similar to ours.

Sure, it can be hijacked and has been, which was already mentioned and the topic of several threads. In fact, that fact is the reason that it's being discussed at all.

I understand the lurkers not getting this, but Mike, you were there when we discussed it.

ETA: Also, that's nonsense. Ron Paul's agenda is the antithesis of the neocon agenda.

I was there when we discussed it; doesn't mean I agree with your analysis, though, does it?

And Ron Paul's agenda is really irrelevant to the Tea Parties at this point. They're already recruiting people to primary against him for his House seat, because he's not "pure" enough for them anymore.

Incrementalism, remember. You seem to think I'm unable to see fascism or the path the journey is taking in other matters. I'd suggest you share the same malady in regards to the Tea Party.

They've stated their aims quite clearly on a number of occasions: Rampant nationalism, rampant corporatism, rampant militarism.

Their motto may as well be yours from a couple years ago: "Want. Take. Have." Or, put another way, "I Got Mine, So Fuck You."

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 6:20 AM

Mike

This discussion was about tea party origins, not its new friends and relations. We are all kind of agreed that its new allies are any kind of conservative you wants to ride on its coattails. That discussion has been done to death. This is called "Where it's headed if we do nothing."

The advocates of do nothing are the dems because they think that it's better to lose and let the neocons win and then have them look bad, which is a strategy that got them into power during a dem admin in congress for two years in the early 90s, and now for two years in the 21st century. That's a pretty poor record.

But this is really off track. Definitely it's not about corporatism. What the tea party becomes depends on what we do. Like it or not, tea party is just a name that Fox news decided to give to a group of people who were, as I said earlier, a bunch of us. If there's any chance of getting back control that if you recall, *we* started, then we have to do something about it.

If you just take the media line of they're all neocons now, eventually, they will be, because the neocon/neolib globalists are who is buying these days: They own 90% of the GOP and 90% of the Dems, and sure enough the do nothing approach will result in them owning 90% of the Tea Party.

But it's just a name, as I said, and if you scan back the posts on this very board you will see that we in fact did start this revolution. I think everyone hear was pretty much party of the revolution, and most of use were a propaganda machine for the anti-govt. revolt that resulted in this. Hell, I was head of the NY RPSUA. I was I forwarded Ron Paul's name for nomination for president quite officially before he had announced. Virtually everyone here thought that Paul for president was a pretty good idea. Paul's platform was made up of a bunch of stuff that we said, because he listened to us.

We're responsible for this baby, the question is are we responsible enough to try to raise it even when it turns out to be, as we knew it would, a serious problem child?

Politics is complicated Mike. As someone famous once put "it's the art of compromise." So, sure, I caved to you and Frem and a lot of people here on the issue of 2a, which is not one I support, but it is a compromise I'm willing to accept. That doesn't mean that we have to compromise with some radical extremists or the NWO, but it does mean that we won't get everything we want. However, if we do nothing, I can guarantee that we won't get *anything* that we want.

And in case you didn't notice, the tea party just elected two black republicans to the house, those are the only two black republicans in the house, so I humbly suggest it is still the more progressive wing of the GOP, even if it is a wing of the GOP, and hopefully, it doesn't have to be just a wing of the GOP, because as Dr. Paul said, that's not nearly as useful and it won't get nearly as good an input.

Sorry for the rant, but it's a do nothing and lose or do something with what we did in fact create, whether we like it or not. I would easily concede that the tea party is far from perfect, and that something very strange is going on behind the scenes with Mrs. Palin, but I still think it's more likely to be freed from the clutches of the NWO then the mainstream democrat and republican parties.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 6:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
In my ultra-cynical way I said it means smart people exploit children ;)

I don’t think it’s cynical, I think it’s right on. Parents use kids at stuff like this; I always abhor it. Half the time the kids don’t have the slightest idea about anything, they’re just given a sign to hold by mommy or daddy to further their own agenda.

Frem, you surely have to admit you’re an unusual example, surely. Most kids aren’t even aware of politics at that age; aside from which, if you look at the kids holding the signs, a) they’re a lot younger than twelve, and b) the signs are obviously made by someone older than them. I respect your defense of children, but in this case I think you’re wrong. You don’t think parents can tell their kids to hold a sign, knowing “cute” gets attention? I do.

Quote:
But it does add a second layer of meaning - the person holding the sign is an idiot, and not worth paying attention to.

That’s the point. If you can’t even spell simple words right, it’s an indication of how ignorant and/or uneducated you are.

Quote:
It's that parents aren't likely to let them go to a rally to support their own political agenda. Hell, I had to spout the family line 'til I left for college.

A very valid point!

Quote:
I think what you're all missing is that I just posted its mission statement. You don't need to guess.

Uh, DT, I thought you said the Tea Party was a disparate bunch of individual people and you couldn’t lump them all together...

I agree that

Quote:
And Ron Paul's agenda is really irrelevant to the Tea Parties at this point. They're already recruiting people to primary against him for his House seat, because he's not "pure" enough for them anymore.

I have not read anything yet that convinces me you see the vast majority of Tea Partiers for what they are, and for what attracted them to the Tea Party, DT. From what I see and hear, it’s largely a “hate Obama” and anti-Democrat movement which attracted people frightened and who only watch Fox News so are convinced it’s the end of the world, the Second Coming, or the Dems are causing “the end of America as we know it”. JMHO.

Quote:
And Ron Paul's agenda is really irrelevant to the Tea Parties at this point. They're already recruiting people to primary against him for his House seat, because he's not "pure" enough for them anymore.

I happen to think Ron Paul’s original agenda is irrelevant to what’s happening in the country with the Tea Party. I think they, and the money/ideology behind them, have been co-opted completely. And I think that’s what we ARE discussing here, not the original intent.

I saw a clip of a bunch of people who were protesting some politician or other (Holder maybe?) because he was “anti-gun”. They had signs and everything, but when the reporter asked them what he had done that was anti-gun, the response was “I don’t have the facts, but I know it’s true.” In point of fact, this person had done NOTHING anti-gun whatsoever. He may be anti-gun, I don’t know, but he hadn’t DONE anything. I think that is indicative of the Tea Party today; people who pick up talking points and slogans and false statements and regurgitate them and act on them without knowing the facts.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 10:49 AM

Niki

The topic was Tea Party '07, sorry if that wasn't clear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 10:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahh, I see; in that case I agree with you. But you seem to think that Tea Party is still what largely makes up today's version, from what you've said in other threads. To me, it seems like anyone who was part of the '07 version would abhor how it's been co-opted and what it stands for today.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 11:00 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You want to know the Tea Party's true motivations? Their real ideology? You want to meet the REAL Tea Party? Look to the neo-con agenda. It's all right there.

I don't really think that's true. As much crap as I (gladly) give our resident Teabaggers (who all were hardcore neocons to begin with), I don't think this holds true for the breadth of the Tea Party movement. I think their intentions were sound, they've just allowed themselves, unwillingly perhaps for some, less so others, so be co-opted by the neocon machine.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 5, 2010 2:55 PM