What's the problem?

[AmericanFirst]

I think we just greatly differ on how to achieve most of them.

No, we are completely different. Take separation of church and state. NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!! I bet you believe it is? That is the difference between a lefty socialist and me, I am a constitutionalist.

So you think the church should run the state? praise Allah!

You lefties sure know how to twist things. No.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I want to cut defense in half so we can reduce deficit spending without draconian cuts to the social safety net.

Does that make me a tea partier?

No, that makes you a socialist. Keep the military, deport illegal aliens, put the individuals that can work that are milking the system to work or else they lose their benefits. Now I mean the ones that can work. The ones that actually deserve the aid can still get it.

That sounds a lot like the former USSR.

Doesn't sound anything like the old ussr and you know it. They enslaved or killed everyone.

 

[Photonic]

No, we are completely different. Take separation of church and state. NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!! I bet you believe it is? That is the difference between a lefty socialist and me, I am a constitutionalist.

So you think the church should run the state? praise Allah!

You lefties sure know how to twist things. No.

Mmm...no, he's right.

The only reason someone would argue that there is no Separation of Church and State is someone who wants to implement their own religion in the government, or in some way influence the government with their religion.

Sorry, that's just truly blind and stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

(1) Reduced government spending.

At the expense of those who, for whatever reason – right or wrong – depend on that spending to stay out of poverty. Also, not all ‘government spending’ is wrong or bad.

(2) Opposed to increased taxation.

Then they’re also opposed to reducing the deficit and balancing the budget, as economists across the political spectrum have noted tax increases are needed to accomplish those goals. And as with reducing government spending, tax increases are also needed to address important issues and emergencies at the Federal level. There’s nothing wrong with taxes and government spending per se, the problem may be how some of that money is spent.

(3) Reduction of national debt and federal budget deficit.

Which is actually part of issues (1) and (2): if the TPM is serious about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, then tax increases will be needed.

(4) Adherence to the US Constitution.

This is of course the TPM’s biggest problem: they refuse (or are unable to) define what this means or place it in context.

We are currently ‘adhering to the Constitution’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean…). The Republic is currently functioning as per the Framers’ intent and as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The problem is, I suspect, many in the TPM fail to understand that the Constitution is a document of law, it exists in the context of the law, and the law, as with the Constitution, is subject to judicial review and interpretation.

That many in the TPM disagree with how the courts have interpreted the Constitution over the decades is irrelevant – that they reject the role of the Supreme Court, the rule of law, and the doctrine of judicial review is also irrelevant, because the law is the only language which may be used when discussing the Constitution; and if members of the TPM refuse to speak that language, then any debate is utterly pointless.

No, we are completely different. Take separation of church and state. NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!! I bet you believe it is? That is the difference between a lefty socialist and me, I am a constitutionalist.

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’ And as I noted, to reject the rule of law and judicial review is to place oneself in a place of ignorance and irrelevance with regard to Constitutional debate.

 

[The T]

According to Wikipedia, the Tea Party promotes the following ideals:
(1) Reduced government spending.
(2) Opposed to increased taxation.
(3) Reduction of national debt and federal budget deficit.
(4) Adherence to the US Constitution.

In my opinion, those are some pretty honorable ideals that we all should strive for - especially politicians regardless of political party connection.

How can you honestly say you are opposed to any of these ideas?

Discuss.

I'm not really opposed to it, but they don't really adhere to their own statements.

Most of them are more interesting in banning gays from existence and enforcing religion on school children than fiscal policy. I'm sick of hearing about republican candidates who would rather enforce policies grounded in their religion than policies ground in our fiscal issues.

The big problem is there aren't really any democratic fiscal conservatives I can vote for, since they tend to be republican.

You mean Repubican.

 

[Cuyo]

According to Wikipedia, the Tea Party promotes the following ideals:
(1) Reduced government spending.
(2) Opposed to increased taxation.
(3) Reduction of national debt and federal budget deficit.
(4) Adherence to the US Constitution.

In my opinion, those are some pretty honorable ideals that we all should strive for - especially politicians regardless of political party connection.

How can you honestly say you are opposed to any of these ideas?

Discuss.

They've chosen core 'beliefs' that are very popular and easy to get behind.

The problem is, they have absolutely no clue how to accomplish them, let alone accomplish all of them at the same time.

 

[uscitizen]

No, that makes you a socialist. Keep the military, deport illegal aliens, put the individuals that can work that are milking the system to work or else they lose their benefits. Now I mean the ones that can work. The ones that actually deserve the aid can still get it.

That sounds a lot like the former USSR.

Doesn't sound anything like the old ussr and you know it. They enslaved or killed everyone.

Apparently I know more about the former USSR than you do.

 

[uscitizen]

According to Wikipedia, the Tea Party promotes the following ideals:
(1) Reduced government spending.
(2) Opposed to increased taxation.
(3) Reduction of national debt and federal budget deficit.
(4) Adherence to the US Constitution.

In my opinion, those are some pretty honorable ideals that we all should strive for - especially politicians regardless of political party connection.

How can you honestly say you are opposed to any of these ideas?

Discuss.

They've chosen core 'beliefs' that are very popular and easy to get behind.

The problem is, they have absolutely no clue how to accomplish them, let alone accomplish all of them at the same time.

Tax cuts for the wealthy will do it all.

 

[Cuyo]

According to Wikipedia, the Tea Party promotes the following ideals:
(1) Reduced government spending.
(2) Opposed to increased taxation.
(3) Reduction of national debt and federal budget deficit.
(4) Adherence to the US Constitution.

In my opinion, those are some pretty honorable ideals that we all should strive for - especially politicians regardless of political party connection.

How can you honestly say you are opposed to any of these ideas?

Discuss.

They've chosen core 'beliefs' that are very popular and easy to get behind.

The problem is, they have absolutely no clue how to accomplish them, let alone accomplish all of them at the same time.

Tax cuts for the wealthy will do it all.

CUT TAXES AND BALANCE THE BUDGET!

It's like thinking getting a handjob will clean your garage.

 

[uscitizen]

Sounds like the Tea Party does need a witch to accomplish their golas.

 

[Firehorse]

(1) Reduced government spending.

This is the 'third rail' that everyone has been avoiding sense these entitlements started. It has to be addressed. The culture in the country right now that tells me the people are ready to 'take the hit' ... Things like welfare, social security and unemployment have long been broken. Anyone with a calculated can see that the numbers don't add up. I'm in my 40's and have been told all my
life that social security would be broken by retiring babyboomers ... And it is. It has to be fixed, from moving retirement age to reducing payments across the board. My mother is in assisted living and I happen to know that such places base how much she pays based on how much she gets. The entire country will have to have compassion during that time of cutting back, renters as well as rentees. It's going to be painful for everyone, the plans and programs sound pretty, but utopia is a dream, not a reality

(2) Opposed to increased taxation

This is an acurate statement. No increases, that doesn't mean cut taxes. Money coming in is not the issue, the money the governement (and what's is spent on) is the issue. You need to reduce taxes to give businesses confidence, you need to stop getting in their business. Removing a lot of forms, fees and regulation and making those changes long term is what businesses are looking for. We don't need tax breaks, we need for the government to get out of the way
(3) Reduction of national debt and federal budget deficit.
(4) Adherence to the US Constitution.

Discuss.[/QUOTE]

 

[Firehorse]

Sorry, my phone is not good at formatting

3 Reduction of federal deficit an nation debt

No silver bullet here. It's going to take time, but with the government out of the private sector, business will grow, economy will grow, GNP will grow and with spending controls in place, the trillions will start to come down ... No silver bullet

Adhere to Constitution

I think most of this centers on the 10th amendment and Obamacare. Yes there are attacks on Gun control, free press, freedom to assimble and freedom of speech, but mostly I think this statement is about Obamacare.

Obamacare is an abomination ... 'Nuf said. Do we need healthcare reform? Yes. Is the answer Obamacare? The more I read, the more the answer is No. I think the answer is some combination of tort reform and free market.

I am not happy at all with the stiffling of freedoms such as laws banning the flag of this country from being flown with pride. Laws against praying before HS football games (this is CLEARLY a law against Religion, no matter how you read it IS against the Constitution)

There is no seperation of church and state, nor is there a combining of church and state. The Constitution simply says that Religion is not an issue the Government can or should get involved in. Passing laws against the practice of a religion is against the constitution, political correctness is something that was created to enable the stepping on free speech, free expression, free assimbly and free religion. It blatent, it out of control, and it needs to stop

 

[signelect]

There are those that do and those who talk. Liberals talks because they don't know how to do anything except take from those that do.