Tea Party and Sympathizers, Please Read

[midcan5]

"....It's time to take on these superliars and stop them from spreading their poisonous ignorance."

"...Few paid attention, but they got to the truth. And they were Socialists fighting the Nazis, you might recall. Listen up, T.P.ers: The Nazis were not Socialists. The Socialists were not Nazis. They were blood enemies. In fact, the Socialists fought the Nazis, while conservatives and nationalists stood by and thought Hitler would be their pawn. Hitler, need it be said, was not a Socialist. He hated the Socialists. Had thousands of them murdered as soon as he came to power...."


'The Tea Party's Toxic Take on History - Ignore it at your peril.'

By Ron Rosenbaum

"Most people with a basic grounding in history find Tea Party ignorance something to laugh about, certainly not something to take seriously. But I would argue that history demonstrates that historical ignorance is dangerous and that it can have tragic consequences, however laughable it may initially seem. And thus the media, liberals, and others are misguided in laughing it off. And educated conservatives are irresponsible in staying silent in the face of these distortions.

The muddled Tea Party version of history is more than wrong and fraudulent. It's offensive. Calling Obama a tyrant, a communist, or a fascist is deeply offensive to all the real victims of tyranny, the real victims of communism and fascism. The tens of millions murdered. It trivializes such suffering inexcusably for the T.P.ers to claim that they are suffering from similar oppression because they might have their taxes raised or be subject to demonic "federal regulation.""

www.slate.com/id/2251669/

www.amazon.com/gp/product/006095339X?ie=UTF8


"...Tell the weeping survivors that such regulation is tyranny, that their husbands and fathers had to die, but for a good cause: lowering federal spending so the T.P.ers could save a few pennies on taxes. That's worth 29 lives snuffed out in a mine blast, isn't it? They either don't see the connection or don't care...." from article


"The secret speech is also relevant to Tea Party slanders about liberals. The 1956 publication of the secret speech served to shatter the illusions of a significant portion of those on the left in this country who still harbored sentimental feelings about the Soviet Union. And helped cement the victory of anti-communist liberalism in America's Democratic Party, an important struggle that the Tea Partiers who think liberals are communists seem to be ignorant of...."

All quotations from article.


"Even Fox News recognizes Tea Party dogma as a seething cauldron of deranged and vicious lies about history. Look at the guy in the photo in this report and how proud he is of his illiterate swastika sign."


Books noted in article. Anyone read Solzhenitsyn, years ago I read most his work, powerful stuff.

www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767900561?ie=UTF8

www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195071328?ie=UTF8



If an article starts with examples of the improper use of Nazis and their ideas and symbolism, then it cannot be accused of Godwin's law. Midcan's Law

[revanarchist]

I think the tea party is a great resource. The problem for those that don't like the TPers is that they are now an established political power, evidenced by the latest round of elections. As for Godwins law is concerned (see notes) its a rather dim attempt to control the general public's grammar and usage, and I would claim thinking. I believe that comparing some groups and or things (like late term abortion for convenience to so called MD's should be compared to Dr Mengele, because they are the same in humanness') to Nazis or their ghoulish practices is both acceptable and even should be encouraged. So I reject and do not recognize Godwins law as a valid concept. ra

[midcan5]

Here is my take on the Tea Party.


'Would the Tea Party Exist....'


"Actually, there is no alienation that a little power will not cure." Eric Hoffer

Would the tea party exist if McCain had won? No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.

So we know there would be no tea party if the republicans had won. That much is clear. If the tea party were a legitimate grass roots organization concerned with government and debt they would have attacked George W. Bush. They did not. So then next question, how is Obama different from Bush Jr? Well, he is not different in any fundamental way. Obama's policies so far differ nada with Bush Jr. OK then, why and whither the tea party?

Some would argue there are big differences between Obama and Bush, but a comparison so far is minimal. The difference is not real but created by the right after the loss of the presidency. Why? A simple reply would be if you think your ideology the right one, any change conflicts and confuses. Defining that ideology would be a challenge.

Jump back in that way-back machine for a moment to William Jefferson Clinton's election. Does anything seem the same? What is different? Hillary and Bill met the same anguished and resolute opposition, they were accused of the same socialism. Hillary was pilloried as beyond evil, often as the devil herself. Why? And what has changed. Eight more years of republican governance and power. Add more corporate money for think tanks, books, and other various propaganda and you have the makings of today.

Then there is the complex issue of race. Racists run from the label racist, only the skinheads actually admit their racism. Of course they will tell you they are protecting their race. For the tea party, racism exists at the fringes, but common foes always provide for an assorted group of odd bedfellows.

A great irony of the tea party is fact they appear mainstream and basically comfortable with their perks as baby boomers, social security recipients, and medicare participants. All the so called socialism they presumably are against provides them great comfort.

So who is their Marx, their Mao, because all movements of this sort have leaders. This is a question that deserves a study in mass movements. I would surely name Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and many conservative and corporate think tanks, web sites, and blogs as their leader, or at least instigator. The run-up to the election was filled with the worst vitriol, and had the republicans under Bush not failed so badly, or even selected a change candidate - is that possible - the election may have been different.

Would the tea party exist if the republicans had won? The human mind often lives a narrative that is pure fantasy. Conservative media provided and provides that fantasy. If only things were different all would be well. If only someone else was in charge. It is the power of mass movements and mass hypnosis that motivates the tea party today. But it is the loss of power that motivates its leaders as it always has.


"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." Eric Hoffer

[MO]

The fact that you want to stop them from spreading their "poisonous ignorance" speaks volumes about you and your ilk. You people just want to silence the dissent at any cost. Stalin would be proud, and so would Obama's pal dictators in Venezuela and Cuba.

"Information is a distraction" according to your god.

Don't know why you post all the silly links to liberal bloggers, as if those who end up on a conservative RANT board are stupid enough to click on them and suck up that bilge.

Glad you posted some of your own words, since I was wondering if you'd ever had an original thought. But alas, it's not...same old crap about the tea party I've read elsewhere.

Of course there wouldn't be a tea party of McCain had won, provided he didn't screw up the country like the current failure in chief has done, by screwing with the health care system in unconstitutional ways, running up unemployment and doubling the national debt. Bringing up the fact that they didn't exist before is beyond foolishness. The Dem party wasn't bitching about gays in the military in the 1950s, either, does that mean they don't care about the issue, now? For that matter, a "progressive" Democrat president (Woodrow Wilson) segregated the races in the military...does that mean Democrats don't care about race segregation?

Use you head.