Is America the greatest country in the world?

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not interested in nationalist nonsense. I am interested in reality where as people we need to coexist if we are to survive on an international level. As far as moving, I served my country proudly, I continue to serve in various capacities which benefit the US. I even support people like you who make statements that do not carry much intelligence, but, undermine the principals that this great nation was built upon.

Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a blimp with no high expectations.
Now explain what principals do I undermine?

"Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.


"Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a blimp with no high expectations. " This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.

"Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

You're a hypocrite. if that's what I have undermined in your opinion, you're doing the same thing.

This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.

Yet another hypocritical post. You're just a communist that try's to use the shame tactic to bully their views onto others.

 

[Connery]

Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a blimp with no high expectations.
Now explain what principals do I undermine?

"Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.


"Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a blimp with no high expectations. " This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.

"Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

You're a hypocrite. if that's what I have undermined in your opinion, you're doing the same thing.

This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.

Yet another hypocritical post. You're just a communist that try's to use the shame tactic to bully their views onto others.

Nope, I am not a communist, I am not a bully. I chose to look at all sides of issue and discuss matters. Clearly, you have many issues which prevent you from doing the same. You continuously attack me while offering no cogent argument. You appear to have the inability to have a serious discussion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.


"Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a blimp with no high expectations. " This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.

You're a hypocrite. if that's what I have undermined in your opinion, you're doing the same thing.

This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.

Yet another hypocritical post. You're just a communist that try's to use the shame tactic to bully their views onto others.

Nope, I am not a communist, I am not a bully. I chose to look at all sides of issue and discuss matters. Clearly, you have many issues which prevent you from doing the same. You continuously attack me while offering no cogent argument. You appear to have the inability to have a serious discussion.

Yet you are a hypocrite.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in

Or the Danes. I've never met a Danish immigrant. Or a Swiss. Or an Icelandic.

There's gotta be a reason.

For the second time in this thread we don't get a lot of western European immigrants here at least since reconstruction after WWII and since the Iron Curtain came down. But we still have more western Europeans including Danes and Swiss moving here than we have Americans moving there. And there was a huge influx of Swiss immigration into the USA in the late 19th century. You don't have to hunt real hard to find the descendants of those folks all over the place.

And.........I suppose that is because the US is a more desireable place to call home? Couldn't be any other reason?

 

[Unkotare]

The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.

Gosh, you're so worldly! Pretentious douche.

You do not impress me.

The difference is that I'm not trying to.

 

[Unkotare]

No, Connery is in no way a pretentious douche. .

What kind of a douche do you think he is then?

 

[MikeK]

I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in

Or the Danes. I've never met a Danish immigrant. Or a Swiss. Or an Icelandic.

There's gotta be a reason.

For the second time in this thread we don't get a lot of western European immigrants here at least since reconstruction after WWII and since the Iron Curtain came down. But we still have more western Europeans including Danes and Swiss moving here than we have Americans moving there. And there was a huge influx of Swiss immigration into the USA in the late 19th century. You don't have to hunt real hard to find the descendants of those folks all over the place.

Do you wish to talk about then or now?

Re: Swiss and Danes migrating here, I would need to see credible evidence of that because I don't believe it. An exception might be those who have advanced technological skills which are in demand. But even so I have never met a Swiss or Danish immigrant. Not even visitors.

As far as Americans migrating to Switzerland or Denmark, it's not quite that simple. While Denmark has been fairly liberal with its asylum policy an influx of troublesome muslims have given them pause. But both nations are very selective about whom they issue citizenship to. To qualify for consideration one must show sufficient resources to support at least the first three years of residence and have a useful trade or profession to offer.

I believe a similar situation now exists in The Netherlands.

 

[Unkotare]

But even so I have never met a Swiss or Danish immigrant. Not even visitors. .

You've met many, many, many of their great-grandchildren. As for "not even visitors," you need to get out more.

 

[Foxfyre]

What Unk said. I will stand by my statement but I don't care enough whether Mike agrees with it to go hunt up links. He's welcome to do so if he wishes to discredit my post.

 

[MikeK]

Not the greatest, but by far the most inspirational

George Washington gave hope to many likeminded souls that lived under the oppressive tyranny of the British Empire. He went up against the most lethal military of the time and prevailed, throwing off the chains of servitude to the Crown. Many took comfort from that, and consequently braved the Atlantic to play a part in the New World. But America's inherited a lot of its former master's bad habits.

But those bad habits were not incoporated into the U.S. Constitution. The Founders were determined to create for us a new nation in which the people would have their God given rights acknowledged and protected so that they could have true liberty; i.e. the ability to live their lives as they chose. They would govern themselves and be subject to no monarch or papal authority or feudal lord or dictatorship or any other authoritarian government. And it worked beautifully into the 20th Century. But once the government started taking authority to govern away from the people and appeased them with free stuff, liberty has been gradually giving away to totalitarianism again.

I honestly think this may be the last generation that will have the ability to reverse that.

I'm afraid the time for that has passed. There is no way to reverse growing dependency on government without substantially reducing population and eliminating its growth.

The human species, in America as elsewhere, is burgeoning and population density creates the need for greater government control over behavior, social organization, and distribution of resources. Libertarians conveniently ignore this critical (and obvious) factor, referring nostalgically to "the good old days" when taxes were low, when there was plenty of space, and when individual Liberty prevailed. Like vain and narcissistic middle-aged egoists who ignore their own physical changes they refuse to acknowledge this simple fact of life as if it doesn't apply to them: This is not America of the early 1900s.

 

[Unkotare]

We are hardly 'running out of space' in the US. That's absurd.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc. But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government. Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.

 

[oldernwiser]

I agree that it is foolish to compare the USA, unique among all nations on Earth, to any other country except to note that our founding principles have been superior to those of any other country.

The Tea Party and other movements like it were and are our best hope to regain our former greatness though. The Tea Party is doing its damndest to raise conciousness about those values that made America great--personal freedom/liberty, recognition of unalienable rights, a work ethic thati includes earning what you receive from any source, paying for what we get, fiscal responsibility, personal and government moral integrity that is impossible when controlled by political correctness, and a people who govern themselves free of an authoriarian government who assigns them their rights.

And of course those who want that authoritarian government and the nanny state, and who simply shrug off a sixteen trillion dollar debt and increasing corruption among those who dole out government charity and the recipients of that charity are trashing and demonizing and marginalizing the Tea Party as much as possible. They know they have succeeded when people who think like the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Tea Party or similar groups to avoid the derision and contemptuous comments thrown at them.

The pro nanny state people will not even look at our former greatness, but point to the pockets of social injustice as the sum total of what previous generations were all about. And they shrug off any negatives brought about by their own present ideology as inconsequential.

I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it. And the great experiment will have failed.

Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.

One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".

To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.

There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.

I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.

I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not. The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:

1. To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
2. To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
3. To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.

That's it. And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.

And to that end, what a wonderful thing to get behind.

Yet, every Republican president since the depression has done his level best to DECREASE fiscal integrity. Especially the last Bush to sit in the oval office, who let the Democrat "pay-go" system lapse and thereby allowed spending to increase without looking back.

The restoration of liberties, as long as we don't talk about contraception, abortion, ending the so called war on drugs, or marrying the person we love regardless of sexual orientation. And let's not forget providing a path for the naturalization of undocumented aliens who have only known life in this country. Exactly which liberties are we really talking about?

And then, decreasing the size, power, scope and expense of the Federal government... to which, I'd ask: To what end? This is the part that scares me the most. Decreasing the size, power, and scope of the Federal government means dropping regulation - which not only protects our businesses, it protects us. It protects the environment in which we live. The Koch brothers would love nothing better than to have a free reign in this regard. Big oil has been salivating over all the land that they can't put a derrick on - despite the increase in places they can already drill. This is also the same government which protects businesses from each other in the form of copyright law and anti-trust regulations. It brings us food which is (more or less) safe to eat, and is supposed to be on guard against large-scale infectious diseases. Does this limitation actually make sense to the American public?

And then comes the expense part of the claim. It's hard to argue that what our government costs us isn't getting out of hand. I could make an argument that the cost of government services has ballooned considerably as more fluff has been added without due consideration of cost and real need. However, before taking out the fiscal machete wouldn't it make more sense to reshape these services to make them more efficient before sending them out to the individual states which are already, themselves, overburdened?

I find it increasingly hard to accept the precepts of the Tea Party - especially as they seem to benefit the very few and to do exactly the opposite of what groups like American Crossroads and Americans For Progress tell you. Each of the terms that you mentioned above were contradicted by every party member supported by the movement. And, although the victory margin was slim, clearly the majority whose hearts and minds were affected the most is still unaffected by the continual brain-washing efforts of the hard right.

 

[MikeK]

It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc. But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government. Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.

I've only lived in two states in my seventy-six years; New York and New Jersey. In both examples all of the things you've listed were indeed handled quite adequately by local governments. But there is no question that the federal government is far too intrusive and heavy-handed in certain situations, the marijuana issue being a currently significant example.

As you know, California chose to allow the distribution of marijuana to anyone with a physician's recommendation. But in spite of Obama's specific promise that the federal government would not interfere there has been significant interference by the DEA. Now that the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana by public referendum I have no doubt the DEA will be conducting periodic raids for the purpose of discouraging confident participation in a legalized activity.

Hopefully that will backfire on them in the form of pressure from a petitioned Congress.

 

[oldernwiser]

It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc. But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government. Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.

I've only lived in two states in my seventy-six years; New York and New Jersey. In both examples all of the things you've listed were indeed handled quite adequately be local governments. But there is no question that the federal government is far too intrusive and heavy-handed in certain situations, the marijuana issue being a currently significant example.

As you know, California chose to allow the distribution of marijuana to anyone with a physician's recommendation. But in spite of Obama's specific promise that the federal government would not interfere there has been significant interference by the DEA. Now that the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana by public referendum I have no doubt the DEA will be conducting periodic raids for the purpose of discouraging confident participation in a legalized activity.

Hopefully that will backfire on them in the form of pressure from a petitioned Congress.

Absolutely! Changing anything done by government is like turning an aircraft carrier around. It takes time... lots of it.

As more states enter into the argument that pot usage isn't as big a deal as the Feds said it was in the 70s, there will be less resistance overall in the Federal government to keep up the pretense.

And see, this would be one of those examples of how to cut billions off of the country's spending: kill the anti-drug laws in their entirety. An entire free-wheeling wing of the government would get clipped straight away (DEA), millions would be saved trying to prove that drugs do bad things (we all know that), and less law enforcement would be required. And more...

Instead of the Tea Party's draconian fiscal machete, let's try doing things that make sense. In the end, it saves a lot more money and keeps social services intact.

 

[Connery]

Greatness is an ongoing process, not a destination where complacency sets in when reached . To do so would erode what has been built and held in high esteem. Throughout it's history America has had to meet challenges whether social such as women's rights or racial with the civil rights movement. The US has had to adjust to the various types of economic systems including an agrarian economy, industrial economy and service economy. We went from a laissez faire capitalistic economic model to a mixed economy. Each one of these changes had a powerful and polarizing effect on the population, took time to adjust and create a checks and balance system by which all people have as much opportunity to survive and hopefully prosper. For example, recently we saw those checks and balance removed from the "banking industry" and the US was thrown into economic chaos now those regulations have been reinstated for the most part and recovery from that maelstrom is under way.

History will decide whether America is the greatest country in the world, but, a country is made up of it's citizens who do have a say in what decisions their representatives make on their behalf. The responsibility for greatness is on the shoulder of each on of us who call ourselves Americans. We have met many earmarks of greatness throughout our history, nevertheless, that is an ongoing process.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc. But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government. Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.

I've only lived in two states in my seventy-six years; New York and New Jersey. In both examples all of the things you've listed were indeed handled quite adequately be local governments. But there is no question that the federal government is far too intrusive and heavy-handed in certain situations, the marijuana issue being a currently significant example.

As you know, California chose to allow the distribution of marijuana to anyone with a physician's recommendation. But in spite of Obama's specific promise that the federal government would not interfere there has been significant interference by the DEA. Now that the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana by public referendum I have no doubt the DEA will be conducting periodic raids for the purpose of discouraging confident participation in a legalized activity.

Hopefully that will backfire on them in the form of pressure from a petitioned Congress.

I'm really torn on the issue of recreational drugs. The libertarian part of me says this too should be strictly a local choice whether the people want them or do not want them in their communities or states. But then you look at the history for clarification, and the issue isn't so clear.

The South American people have been chewing on Coca leaves as a mile stimulant, much as we use coffee, for thousands of years with no apparent ill effect. But when somebody learned to refine and purify cocaine in the late 19th century, it became widely used in the medical profession and was frequently prescribed for various ailments, as well as being perfectly legal to use without prescription as well. But when almost all steady users became addicted with corresponding loss of productivity, decimation of family structures,, etc. etc., I think it was like 1914? or something like that when the federal government stepped in and took control making recreational use of various opiates and other addictive drugs illegal. So now most people obey the law and are not tempted to use illegal substances. Would that be the case if they were legal and became more accessible? I don't know. But it is a fact that those nations with legalized recreational drugs do have higher addiction rates than we see in the USA and it is a fact that almost all recovering addicts do not want addictive substances legalized and made more accessible.

So on this one I have not arrived a a point of absolute conviction though I am strongly for making it socially unacceptable to use such substances and do lean toward allowing the states or local communities to make their own laws regarding such things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.

One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".

To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.

There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.

I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.

I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not. The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:

1. To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
2. To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
3. To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.

That's it. And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.

And to that end, what a wonderful thing to get behind.

Yet, every Republican president since the depression has done his level best to DECREASE fiscal integrity. Especially the last Bush to sit in the oval office, who let the Democrat "pay-go" system lapse and thereby allowed spending to increase without looking back.

The restoration of liberties, as long as we don't talk about contraception, abortion, ending the so called war on drugs, or marrying the person we love regardless of sexual orientation. And let's not forget providing a path for the naturalization of undocumented aliens who have only known life in this country. Exactly which liberties are we really talking about?

And then, decreasing the size, power, scope and expense of the Federal government... to which, I'd ask: To what end? This is the part that scares me the most. Decreasing the size, power, and scope of the Federal government means dropping regulation - which not only protects our businesses, it protects us. It protects the environment in which we live. The Koch brothers would love nothing better than to have a free reign in this regard. Big oil has been salivating over all the land that they can't put a derrick on - despite the increase in places they can already drill. This is also the same government which protects businesses from each other in the form of copyright law and anti-trust regulations. It brings us food which is (more or less) safe to eat, and is supposed to be on guard against large-scale infectious diseases. Does this limitation actually make sense to the American public?

And then comes the expense part of the claim. It's hard to argue that what our government costs us isn't getting out of hand. I could make an argument that the cost of government services has ballooned considerably as more fluff has been added without due consideration of cost and real need. However, before taking out the fiscal machete wouldn't it make more sense to reshape these services to make them more efficient before sending them out to the individual states which are already, themselves, overburdened?

I find it increasingly hard to accept the precepts of the Tea Party - especially as they seem to benefit the very few and to do exactly the opposite of what groups like American Crossroads and Americans For Progress tell you. Each of the terms that you mentioned above were contradicted by every party member supported by the movement. And, although the victory margin was slim, clearly the majority whose hearts and minds were affected the most is still unaffected by the continual brain-washing efforts of the hard right.

I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody. What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek. We do not get involved in the social aspect.

If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.

But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed. It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity. They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc. And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most. The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.

The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.

 

[oldernwiser]

I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not. The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:

1. To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
2. To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
3. To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.

That's it. And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.

[Snipped]

I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody. What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek. We do not get involved in the social aspect.

If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.

But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed. It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity. They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc. And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most. The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.

The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.

And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.

 

[Foxfyre]

[Snipped]

I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody. What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek. We do not get involved in the social aspect.

If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.

But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed. It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity. They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc. And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most. The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.

The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.

And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.

How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?