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.
#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*
#82 You got me, he’s 99.7% right, as judged by an independent rating agency.
#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.
Its been suggested the Tea Party also be known as the Tsunami Party…its flooding over and washing Progressive debris out of the way.
So is the Tea Party regressive? It would make sense if it’s anti-progressive.
BTW, the best thing that can happen for Obama is that Republican Tea Party wins Congress. If the Democrats held Congress then Obama would be a one term President. It’ll be fun to see John Boehner try and actually lead legislation, block legislation, fight Obama and the Tea Partiers all at once.
When this election is over then the race for the Republican nomination begins. I’m betting on Huckabee. I used to think Pawlenty or Romney had a shot but Tea Partiers would crucify them as being to socialist or something.
Sea Lawyer–welcome back, off the ad hominem and/or irrelevant==keeping your eye on the ball. Hmmmm–how to go to the heart and soul of your political persona? You are WRONG, humorously so.
“The point is that when they vote, people tend to vote without weighing their self interest at al.” Heh, heh. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING. You are arguing by admitting the proposition and then still arguing without recognizing what you are saying. Its like: “Its not raining outside, I’m just totally wet and dripping here because it wasn’t sunny.”
Yes, people do tend to vote without weighin their own (long term) self interest at all which means they ARE NOT VOTING IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST. Jesus man–just read what you say!! You indeed are posting like a raving teabagger complaining of the supreme court and then not being able to cite a single case. Or three in a row high officials of various teabagger orgs railing against Federal Spending without being able to name a single program they would cut. Or just now on the tube, teabaggers complaining the government is too socialist and agreeing Social Security should be done away with because “we have paid taxes for that.” WHADDA BUNCHA MORONS. And that is just how you post on the issue. “Screw loose” is not ad hominem, but purely descriptive.
You add to your embrassment at #89: You think it is against the self interest of Rich People to vote for welfare programs. First, you act as if income tax revenue is program identifiable when in fact it is fungible. Second, the issue of providing a social safety net is revelatory of whether or not you think in the short self centered term or are capable of thinking about your own and your kiddies longer term interests. Do “I” want to live in a country without a social safety net where large swaths of “have nots” grow up with nothing but a social wealth gap to experience in life. Ever been to a foreign country and seen the rich neighborhoods with private security, wire and broken glass on every enclosed gated compound? Living in a jail cell with your society walled out?? Can’t leave without fear of kidnapping? Shops with steel rolldown doors locked all the time? I’m thinking parts of Mexico, Lima Peru etc. Not a pretty sight. What is living among desperate people worth if you can’t walk the street, or park your car?
And so Sea Lawyer, it is your short sighted “I’ve got mine, screw you” mentality that puts me on edge. I really don’t like it. I won’t apologize when you post as an idiot on top of it.
Yea, Verily.