So, they are generally a bunch of people who get together to gripe, but not do anything about it? Sounds like typical Americans. Now the French on the other hand…
A new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.
The results come from a months-long effort by The Post to contact every tea party group in the nation, an unprecedented attempt to understand the network of individuals and organizations at the heart of the nascent movement.
Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general. […] The findings suggest that the breadth of the tea party may be inflated. The Atlanta-based Tea Party Patriots, for example, says it has a listing of more than 2,300 local groups, but The Post was unable to identify anywhere near that many, despite help from the organization and independent research.
In all, The Post identified more than 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. Each answered a lengthy questionnaire about their beliefs, members and goals. The Post tried calling the others as many as six times. It is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don’t exist.
[…]
There is little agreement among the leaders of various groups about what issue the tea party should be most concerned about. In fact, few saw themselves as part of a coordinated effort. The most common responses were concerns about spending and limiting the size of government, but together those were named by less than half the groups. Social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights, did not register as concerns.
>the Nazi state just allowed people to give their worst inclinations free reign.
Reason to not give more power to the government, where bureaucrats have free reign.
# 70 bobbo, “Animby, I hope you were just suckered in by the momentum of things. Just working too hard as usual I assume.” Wow. I had to go back and reread the post about Stewart. I don’t see that I said anything bad about him just making the observation that in any population there are going to be certain Alfreds who will get their news from odd places.
As far as Stewart goes, I download most of the Daily Shows and watch them when I have the chance. I love his wit and humor and I love even more that although he is a well-known liberal he takes seeming delight in skewering the left AND the right in just about equal measure.
Although I love his show, I would never use it as a definitive source. I’ve seen him take some quotes out of context from time to time. But I have seen things on his show that made me go research a story.
Limbaugh on the other hand. He just gets harder and harder to take. I listen to his show maybe a couple of times a month. Yesterday, I downloaded the show so I could make sure Alf was just repeating (like a molting macaw) Limbaugh’s exact words. Fortunately, you can get a copy of his show off Pirate Bay without all the commercials. Then set my MP3 player to run at 1.25 X normal and I can get through the 3 hours in about an hour.
That reminds me, I haven’t listened to Alex Jones for three or four months. I should get a copy of a recent show and see what conspiracy he sees now. He’s always good for a shot of paranoia juice. I don’t think I’ve ever made it all the way through one of his shows. Unlike Limbaugh, I think Jones believes everything he says and THAT’S scary.
Animby,
I would LOVE to hear anything you think Stewart said out of context, or even a couple of the things that made you research.
I hear people trash Stewart all the time, but they always turn out to be Right-wing ignorant assholes who can’t provide an intelligent criticism beyond “some stuff bugs me”.
Animby==good spin, or even what you were thinking when you typed something else. Somebody compared Stewart to Limbaugh and you posted it was a “good comparison” and went on to say that some people used Stewart as their only source for news.
On challenge, you interject some quibbling spin. Fact is, if all you got was Stewart, you would be pretty well informed on the water cooler issues of the day.
Who reads magazines and books?
Like I said, somebody set you up but you did walk into it.xxxxxxxxxxxx hmmm—just a tv snob then? You are sooooo touchy. Ha, ha. “I reach out and touch you!!!!”
Well, you can join Sea Lawyer in not liking to be contradicted.
TV Snobs===my cultural touchstones are better than yours.
Stewarts humor/wit/show comes from putting things INTO CONTEXT==so I wait with smartalix for your examples. I’m sure a few exist==out of how many skits?
Bobbo – just for the record I did not compare Limbaugh to Stewart. Back to your remedial reading class.
I agreed that some people likely got their news from Stewart – another entertainer and that was a good comparison. Not the actors but the people who refuse to understand entertainment is not always fact.
As for Smartalix, had he asked politely I might have tried to remember but I feel under no such compunction especially when he obviously is as fanatical as Alfie. I said nothing against Stewart unless my appreciation of his humor is a condemnation.
In any case, I’ve got to pack. Phone rang a while ago and I have tickets for an early flight to Indonesia.
Fare thee well.
Animby ((if you get totally bored)). Well, I got that one totally wrong again as usual. I’ll spend some time later looking up what “good comparison” means.
I thought smartalix was being totally appropriate. In context, he is totally surprised you would hold an opinion held by so many right wing assholes, so he was seeking clarification? I Know, I KNOW===now I gotta look up what clarification means too.
When did I stop enjoying traveling? and why?? I guess when I started doing repeats. Sad when you know Picadilly Square better than your own town. May your copilot be St Christopher if the big guy is otherwise engaged.
Animby,
It’s easy to walk off in a huff when one has no real argument. It’s standing your ground that marks a man.
#63 bobbo
No analogy needed. I’m referring to the people not the movement (i.e. ‘polis’ city / ‘politēs’ citizen).
Maybe focus on the substance of the argument, political opinions are more defendable than semantics.
Alfred Persson said “Rush Limbaugh is always right”.
Nobody is always right. And you complain about the left being arrogant and elitist. *snort*
#83 And Joe Biden is 99 44/100% pure. Nice try.
#81–LDA==unlike YOU and everyone else I see regularly attending this blog, I enjoy the opportunity to find my own errors, to be corrected, to learn. Hoping I was about to learn the wider usage of “polity” I did a longer google search: I got nothing like what you come back with. Then I saw your distinction of using “polites.” Another shorter google: more nothing. Turns out to be proper names in Greek Mythology. Nothing about citizens.
Before I label you another smart ass too lazy to learn, much like Sea Lawyer, have you got a link?
To make a dinstinction between the subject you wish to discuss and the words you use to identify and discuss that subject is wholly fanciful. ie==it doesn’t exist. They are one in the same. The words you use IS what you are discussing. Your own private thoughts may be elsewhere but the discussion is written plain.
We think with words, and flower with ideas. If you don’t admit to a mistake, and learn from it, how will your life be a journey?
“polity |ˈpälətē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
a form or process of civil government or constitution.
• an organized society; a state as a political entity.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from obsolete French politie, via Latin from Greek politeia ‘citizenship, government,’ from politēs ‘citizen,’ from polis ‘city.’” – New Oxford American Dictionary.
“…The words you use IS [sic] what you are discussing…”
That is true, but I made it clear that I was referring to the people as the source of government, so you really are just focusing on a single word and ignoring the substance of the argument, which is your prerogative.
If someone chooses a word you find ambiguous (or even incorrect) and then clarifies what they intended to express, I for one would be satisfied (if I was actually trying to understand and discuss the substance of the point). If they show you the root of the word derives from the meaning they intended to convey I would be fully satisfied.
P.S. I once referred to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. An error you pointed out and which was then immediately obvious to me (i.e. they are the same thing). I conceded such at the time and learned from it. So at least we agree on that.
LDA==thank you. Few here can hold an argument, fewer still when they are WRONG. Do you admit you were WRONG in your use of the word? Words mean what they mean today in standard usage, not what their origins meant 400 years ago in another country.
As I did state, I would not have commented on the issue at all but Animby opened the door and encouraged me to do so. I doubt he was thinking of mere semantics although he knows I am a devoted philologist.
And rightfully so, you noted and then graciously did not harp on my own sloppy grammar. Well done. I was thinking the singular but typed the plural, so the onus is on me especially when quibbling about words.
Now, lets see: when not called upon to quibble, what did you actually say?: (sic)::
18 LDA said, on October 26th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
So they are not a well coordinated highly funded group that campaigns to their base on cliché’s then continues the previous policies of the opposing group-think body (party) when in office regardless of what ‘side’ they claim to represent. Well that is refreshing. /// Well, I think Animby DESTROYED you on this point. Teaparty is running now and none have been in office to show their metal. My fear is EXACTLY that they will revert to the deficit and spend ways to the wealth transference to the top 2% SuperRich which has made me change my mind about voting for the least qualified non-encumbent. None of the top five seem qualified human beings much less political leaders. We can only hope for the best?
Maybe if there were a dozen more groups like this from other political leanings, and those groups were to compromise on important issues, there would be better government. /// Thats a very silly thing to hypothesize. Yes, if lions and lambs would lie down together, there would be peace in the fields. The whole point of the teabaggers is that they vow to be uncompromising. Silly.
People moan about or lionise these people based on their same tired fight against one of the two major, corrupt, manipulative and unrepresentative (in action not rhetoric) parties. The idea that everyone is worse than the two pathetic choices that get rotated through constantly says more about those that support those parties than the people that are sick of the same old crap. /// Gee, WRONG again. Third party choices are most often WORSE THAN the two standard bad choices. Again, silly to say much less think otherwise.
People are too easily manipulated (including the neo-Tea Partiers). /// Neo? What, compared to the archaic teaparty of Boston Bay? There is no evidence the current TP’s are manipulatable other than in their taking advice to run away from reporters or to beat up or handcuff those who disagree with them. Loose cannons a la Germany of the 20’s more like it. Very bad people and easy to think they are controllable. I’m sure a few in the Puke party are debating this issue right now: “Let’s make X the vice-Pres and get him out of the way politically into a dead end office.” Yes, very manipulatable until they actually get the power.
Well, I won’t read more of the thread to see if I covered/disagreed with Animby or not.
If we talked longer, I’m sure we could find many area’s of agreement. That would be my goal, along with finding those area’s of disagreement too.
Fight the good fight. Avoid the quibble, its not a manly thing to do. I feel for Animby’s deviously clever trap once again. Curses!!!!
#65, bobbo,
Answer the question: can you recognize the american public voting against its own self interest on any number of occasions OR is it your position that never happens.
You have very poor comprehension if you think my position was ever that the public never votes against its self interest. It does so much of the time, but not necessarily deliberately. The point is that when they vote, people tend to vote without weighing their self interest at all; because if it was self interest that was motivating their individual votes, the expected payoff is so low that it is not worth the effort. They vote for other reasons – civic pride, feeling they are part of the process, etc.
Where you see self interested voting occuring, it is usually involving some form of collective action where a concentrated group has an interest in making sure a pet issue is promoted.
A very simple example is rich people who vote for politicians promising to expand welfare programs. This is obviously against their self interest as they will be the ones providing all the funding while receiving none of the benefits. But they do it because they have a belief that these programs are the right thing for the government to be doing.