Neo-Confederate Origins of Today's Tea Party Movement (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 03:31:49 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Neo-Confederate Origins of Today's Tea Party Movement (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Neo-Confederate Origins of Today's Tea Party Movement  (Read 7271 times)
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Canada
« on: August 29, 2011, 12:44:57 AM »

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Roll Eyes Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

Why would you be surprised that most liberals are very defense of the federal government when it's institutions are very much bastions of the social order that we support? Nearly all criticism of the federal government is targeted towards the EPA, Department of the Interior, Education, race relations and not civil liberties. It's also quite obvious that when conservatives like Rick Perry are peeing their pants over the federal government, they'd gladly keep using it to curb gay rights. I'm just concerned about advancing civil rights and equality in all areas and am willing to use any layer of government whether it's local, state or national to do it. Government is an instrument, not an end goal.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Canada
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2011, 04:05:47 PM »

I remember reading a WaPo or NYT article mentioning a study conducted that shows that Tea Partiers were actually far more likely to hold extremely regressive views on social issues than the average mainstream Republican. The study also found that most average Tea Partiers were the staunch members of the religious right that followed around Alan Keyes and the like. I don't see how that makes the Tea Party "neo-confederate" but considering the roots of all of that nonsense, there's a big racist background there. Look at any email chains spread around and you'll see that there are big racist/xenophobic undercurrents to these people.

By "these people", I mean the underinformed masses not Atlas forumers so please conservatives, get the sand out of your collective vagina before responding to my post.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Canada
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2011, 05:23:58 PM »

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Roll Eyes Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

Why would you be surprised that most liberals are very defense of the federal government when it's institutions are very much bastions of the social order that we support? Nearly all criticism of the federal government is targeted towards the EPA, Department of the Interior, Education, race relations and not civil liberties. It's also quite obvious that when conservatives like Rick Perry are peeing their pants over the federal government, they'd gladly keep using it to curb gay rights. I'm just concerned about advancing civil rights and equality in all areas and am willing to use any layer of government whether it's local, state or national to do it. Government is an instrument, not an end goal.

But many people seem literally, offended by mentioning the phrase "states rights" or the 10th amendment in any context. Note I didn't mention federal programs anywhere in that post, just a state based approach to policy making on various hot button "social issues." You know the ones people like GWB, Perry, Bachmann, etc. are constantly bringing up at the federal level regardless of how irrelevant, minor or unlikely to be resolved (all the better!) they are compared to other concerns. You would think liberals would be more inclined to say those are state matters but I rarely see them even concede that.

Consider how state's rights and the 10th amendment are usually used and you'll understand why liberals have knee jerk reactions against those words.

Well I don't believe that they are state matters because I don't really believe in federalism personally. That doesn't mean I want an entirely unitary state but I don't support federalism in the American sense where states get to determine civil rights, immigration policy and education policy on their own.

I certainly support getting rid of DOMA but I'd much rather there be a federal decision on gay marriage rather than wait decades for trashheaps like Utah and West Virginia to institute it on their own.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Canada
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2011, 05:32:16 PM »

I have a feeling that if some West Coast hippie commune decided to stop paying income taxes in order to protest the wars, then every "liberal" on this site would be cheering when they send the SWAT team in spraying bullets.

And if the Governor of Vermont decided to take direct control of the Vermont National Guard (which, constitutionally, he is absolutely allowed to do, seeing as the National Guards are state militias, not branches of the federal armed forces) and order them to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then all the "liberals" here would get all indignant and start making absurd legal arguments for why Obama should be Commander-In-Chief of everything.

Nope. Strawmen are fun though, aren't they!
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Canada
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2011, 05:41:47 PM »


Not one of my best but pretty enjoyable. I'd give myself a 4/10. Bashing Republicans is far too easy.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Canada
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2011, 06:16:13 PM »

Right, because when someone says they are a neo-confederate, you immediately think of states rights issues such as legalization of gay marriage, pot etc. Roll Eyes Absolutely ridiculous.

I wasn't speaking about them, I was speaking about the modern left's knee jerk attachment to the federal government. Obviously I don't believe the dittoheads, beckites, etc. when they talk about local rule or individual rights, especially after 8 years of Bush.

Why would you be surprised that most liberals are very defense of the federal government when it's institutions are very much bastions of the social order that we support? Nearly all criticism of the federal government is targeted towards the EPA, Department of the Interior, Education, race relations and not civil liberties. It's also quite obvious that when conservatives like Rick Perry are peeing their pants over the federal government, they'd gladly keep using it to curb gay rights. I'm just concerned about advancing civil rights and equality in all areas and am willing to use any layer of government whether it's local, state or national to do it. Government is an instrument, not an end goal.

But many people seem literally, offended by mentioning the phrase "states rights" or the 10th amendment in any context. Note I didn't mention federal programs anywhere in that post, just a state based approach to policy making on various hot button "social issues." You know the ones people like GWB, Perry, Bachmann, etc. are constantly bringing up at the federal level regardless of how irrelevant, minor or unlikely to be resolved (all the better!) they are compared to other concerns. You would think liberals would be more inclined to say those are state matters but I rarely see them even concede that.

Consider how state's rights and the 10th amendment are usually used and you'll understand why liberals have knee jerk reactions against those words.

Well I don't believe that they are state matters because I don't really believe in federalism personally. That doesn't mean I want an entirely unitary state but I don't support federalism in the American sense where states get to determine civil rights, immigration policy and education policy on their own.

I certainly support getting rid of DOMA but I'd much rather there be a federal decision on gay marriage rather than wait decades for trashheaps like Utah and West Virginia to institute it on their own.
I love how states that don't conform to your ideas/sexuality/ideology are "trashheaps". That's a mature way of thought, and this is coming from a 15 year old.

I take that back and apologize to the wonderful foliage and mountainous terrain of both states. It's the people that inhabit them that make the states trashheaps. Keep in mind that I have many Mormon and even a few redneck friends, I have the free license to bash them and their alien cultures!

Feel free to pull that stick out of your buttocks though, I'm merely joking.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 11 queries.