Currently viewing the tag: "name"
Question: Why did Republicans or whoever started the “Tea Party” protests choose the name “Tea Party”?
The Boston Tea Party was about colonists not having representation in the English Parliament. An increase on the tax of tea was just what broke the camel’s back; if that tax wasn’t going back to the crown, the colonists wouldn’t have been so angry.
Republicans and conservatives have quite a few representatives in congress that they voted in, and thus do not share the same plight as the colonists.
Are the protests just because Obama is in office, and conservatives feel that they have no representation in the oval office?
Why pick a historical reference that has nothing to do with their ’cause’?
mopar Mike aka tea party mobster : I didn’t ask if only conservatives can protest with them. I’m asking how does what they call themselves relate to what they are protesting?
Mike: Actually I didn’t say anything about anyone being unintelligent. Nor was I being ‘arrogant.’
Asking how their name relates to their cause shouldn’t be insulting.
“”"
correlation with the original tea parties is with the protesting aspect of it
“”"
So what you are saying is that the modern tea party protests could have just been easily called the Tiananmen Square protests 2 or a civil rights protest 2?
“”"
He was mad and had a whole room of traders behind him agreeing with him. He made the comment that it looked like it was time for another tea party and that’s all it took.
“”"
So someone made an incorrect historical reference on CNBC and that’s where the name comes from? Interesting, I might go and look that up later.
Charles: You given the best answer for how the name relates to the cause.
””
People actually feel they are not being represented by either party. If the people were actually being represented, this government would not be in debt, and would not be borrowing to maintain services (that the government shouldn’t provide any way.
”’
I don’t know what services you are talking about.
To summarize my understanding of your argument: even though our congress is voted in by American citizens, they still do not represent your views on spending and which programs you want to see.
It still doesn’t fit the historical context, but I thinking I’m starting to understand what right wing people mean by big government. They feel disenfranchised or marginalized by a country that is too big. If that’s true, why blame President Obama?
A good way to fight this would be to get involved with primaries or support Obama credit card bill of rights or fight for a public healthcare option.
Syllogistic: Can you clarify how?
”’
our government steps beyond the bounds of the Constitution then they are exercising illegitimate authority.
“”
In recent memory I can only recall the Patriot Act doing this.
Syllogistic:
”’
British government did not have the right to change taxation rates on tea.
”’
Actually the government did have the right to do that. The problem is the money was perceived to be going back to the crown and not the colonist.
Answer:
Answer by Caribou “QUIT” Barbie™
No
There is no historical reference at all.
Question: Can you name some key differences between the “99% Party” and the “Tea Bag Party”?
I know there are huge fundamental differences… but a concise list of a few hard hitting key points would be awesome.
Thanks!
Answer:
Answer by Joe Finkle
Well, OWS is refusing to associate themselves with the 99% party and say so on their website. They are working on a cohesive message and don’t want one thrust upon them from an opportunistic outside group.
I’m not familiar with a “Tea Bag Party”, but if you mean “Tea Bag” as a derogatory name for the various corporate funded Tea Party groups, the original grass roots Tea Party allowed themselves to be co-opted by those special interests. When asked why they never protested Wall Street, since TARP was their original complaint, the head of Tea Party Patriots (one of the few bottom-up tea party groups) said they “never got around to it”. That’s because groups like Americans for Prosperity and other corporate funded Tea Party groups spun them off onto side issues that benefited the wealthy.
EDIT: Wait, sorry, the fake organization trying to co-opt the OWS movement is called the Occupy Party, not the 99% Party:
http://occupywallst.org/article/site-has-nothing-do-us/
Question: Can anyone name a Specific proposal offered by the “Tea Party?”?
All I hear out of these people are a bunch of slogans. i see a lot of flag waving, chants of “USA, USA, USA,” but that is about it.
They scream “cut spending” but offer no specific cuts that would make a difference. They are so uninformed many think if we just get rid of “earmarks” and “welfare” that all will be right in the world. Of course those costs are a drop in the bucket. Earmarks are 18 billion out of a 3.6 trillion dollar budget. Welfare takes up about 2.8% o the federal pie.
The only places to cut where we’d put a dent in the debt are in Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Let’s see how long they will put up with that.
Ever notice none of these people ever complain about the cost of the wars, or the billions in wases in Iraq?
I still say that if the tea party ever sits down and tried to write out a platform that they would be at each others throats. You have a mixture of hard core atheists libertarians, and right wing fundamentalists. That is like oil and water.
Answer:
Answer by Party Hack
I went to one rally and they were talking about cutting all capital gains taxes to zero. That would mean that the extremely rich who own every thing and never have to work would pay zero taxes, and the tax burden would fall solely on those that work for their money. They didn’t want Paris Hilton to pay taxes lol.
Question: Is it true that a Republican “Tea Party” is the new name for “Clan Meeting?
Why would they say that?
@ “Ima pear eat me” – You seem to be very upset for misspelling the word “klan” – sorry to have offended your devotion to The KLAN.
@ “consrgreat” – Thank you for sharing some facts through your expertise in “KLAN ” history.
Answer:
Answer by Sawyer
No.
Clever though.
Question: Has “Tea Party” really been just a newfangled name for “neoconservative”?
In ref to:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html
“By putting the Constitution front and center, the Tea Party has reinvigorated a long-simmering argument over who we are and who we want to be. That’s great. But to truly honor the Founders’ spirit, they have to make room for actual debate.”
I ask this because “University of Washington Study Concretely Links Tea Party Members With Authoritarianism, Racism, Homophobia” http://www.phillyimc.org/en/university-washington-study-concretely-links-tea-party-members-authoritarianism-racism-homophobia
Answer:
Answer by Lady Laissez Faire
Newsweek??
ha ha ha ha
Question: Is the “Tea Party” really just the same old Bush-era Republican party with a new name?
Answer:
Answer by spot the cat
same lame no brain drains
Question: Do you think Republicans have successfully hijacked the name “Tea Party” for their own benefit?
I used to wonder how Sarah Palin (who accepted a VP bid from a lifetime moderate Republican) managed to become the face of the “tea party (at least according to the MSM). The same tea party that is currently ousting moderate Republicans in primaries.
Turns out, the SAME Republican group that pushed for a John McCain victory under the PAC name “Our Country Deserves Better” in 2008 simply changed it’s name to the “Tea Party Express” after they realized people basically loathed the Republican establishment.
This “Tea Party Express” PAC (formerly Our Country Deserves Better), a Republican group, is currently funding Sarah Palin’s bus tour around the country.
So would you say the Republican party has successfully hijacked the name and rhetoric of the “tea party”?
Also, do you think all the people who ACTUALLY believe in “limited government” and a reduction in federal spending will let the GOP screw them again? (George W. Bush ran on a platform of limited government and no nation building in 2000)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43866.html
The Tea Party Express, paid Holland America Line a total of $ 103,000 to send six of its staffers on four consecutive cruises on the Amsterdam. The payments to the cruise line, which appeared on a campaign finance report filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission, have started drawing attention from critics of the Tea Party Express, who have alleged that the committee is a front for Republican consultants seeking to use the populist movement to make a buck and live the high life…………..The PAC paid $ 678,000 — more about half of its overall spending — to a Sacramento-based GOP consulting firm called Russo Marsh + Associates, which started and runs the PAC. To be sure, more than half of the payments to Russo Marsh were for advertising costs, from which firms typically derive only a fraction of the overall buy.
But POLITICO revealed in April that the firm made a conscious decision to adopt tea party branding for its PAC — which had previously been called Our Country Deserves Better and had supported Arizona Sen. John McCain’s 2008 GOP presidential campaign — in an effort to “give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus.”
Answer:
Answer by Stay thirsty my friends
They’re the same people…you can’t hijack yourself…
Question: I am a conservative but when is the “Tea Party” going to change it’s name?
They are a force to be reckon with and I believe the Republican Party, as the Tea Party gets more bigger and organized, should treat the Tea Party as an ally. But if the “Tea Party” wants to be serious on the political stage they have got to change their name. Oh and Liberals in here don’t say some cheesy joke on how the Tea party should change it’s name to “balh blah”…. Does anyone got a serious name that could replace “tea”. Here’s my a clever name for the Tea Party.. a suggestive name-the “Utopian Party” The “Utopian Candidate vs. the Democrat or Republican” very catchy.
*Yawn* I am yawing right now because I already rained in on their joke… I said no cheesy jokes people so other people are yawing too.
Answer:
Answer by Stephen
the crazy party would be good
Question: Can you name 3 significant ways in which the “Tea Party” differs from the “Moral Majority”?
Answer:
Answer by November is coming!
They are the Silent Majority no longer silent.
Tea Party = fiscal
Moral Majority = Social
Damn, you’re dumb!
Question: Is this argument invalid regarding using Obama’s middle name?
“He used it when he swore in!” True, he did use it to swear in. That would make the argument valid except that so many other presidents-
George W. Bush (2nd)
“I Gorge Walker Bush…” Why don’t you call him this all the time?
George W. Bush (1st)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YufAf32ilQ
“I George Walker Bush…” Why don’t you call him that all the time?
Bill Clinton (2nd)
(Still trying to find this one)
Bill Clinton (1st)
“I William Jefferson Clinton…” Why don’t you call him that all the time?
George Bush (as he was called during his administration)
“I George Herbert Walker Bush…” Why don’t you call him that all the time?
Ronald Reagan (2nd)
“I Ronald Reagan…” This was the first exception that I found.
Ronald Reagan (1st)
“I Ronald Reagan…” As far back as I went, Ronald Reagan was the last one to not use his full name.
Jimmy Carter didn’t either, but Gerald R. Ford did use his middle initial.
So is the argument-”He used it when he swore in!” invalid because they didn’t use the full names of the previous ones despite whether they used them in their inaugurations or not?
It seems that none of you have actually addressed my question.
I am asking why it is that people use his inauguration as the reason why they use his middle name when they didn’t do that before.
White House Watching-You know as well as I that the Right made excessive use of his name as the Left avoided doing so.
So I agree that the Left leaning media avoided it-but the Right leaning media had an excess of it.
Answer:
Answer by wisdomforfools
Yes. His name might as well be Barack W. Obama as far as I am concerned.