IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #61
Questions for Tea Partiers
- Thread starter IndependntLogic
- Start date
Gold Member
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,979
- 500
- 130
So apparently you have a friend and attended a Tea Party event, and didn't ask any of these questions.
Supposedly all you learned was that Tea Party people are birthers that dislike Muslims.
I don't believe anything in the OP
asterism
Congress != Progress
I think it's the one issue the entire TP agrees on. There's massive differences in other areas.
True. IMO, yes on the machine gun. No on the RPG no on the Nuke. Also, I think the use of the Dept. of Education, DOT, and HHS to manipulate and encroach on the states is unconstitutional. Again just my opinion, but I think the EPA has gone way overboard.
No.
No.
I'd close most of them. I'd keep one or two in Europe, Iraq, and Japan. I'd keep Diego Garcia and GITMO. I'd put new ones in India and Austraila. I'd remove the speed bump from Korea, remove most bases from Germany, Turkey, Kuwait, the UK, and Italy.
Eliminate the Dept. of Education. It's a beast that doesn't work. Every function it serves is best done at the state and county level. Eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security. It's an ineffective conglomerate. The FBI and DOD are better suited. The TSA is a complete waste, it's ineffective, inefficient, and very poorly structured for security. If the need for security at that level is warranted, have the U.S. Marshals do it. Scale back DOT. It's silly to send money from local areas to Washington and then send that money back to the very same areas (with some pork manipulation). Roads are largely local functions anyway and they are best handled locally.
No, yes, no.
Before this was a federal monopoly, local needs were funded with local dollars. We should get back to that. We need fewer micromanaging regulations and more regulatory oversight. It should not be illegal to have cross-state private insurance pools. It should not be illegal to have voluntary ad-hoc insurance pools. We should not subsidize people who will pay $500 a month for a new car but scoff at spending $100 to visit a doctor and $13 for medication. Health insurance should be for serious and catastrophic events, not the sniffles.
It's ultimately an issue of equal protection and I support it except ideally there'd be no federal involvement in marriage.
Nope. None of the gay Marines I've served with were sissies. That's more of a Navy thing.
FairTax. It not only (generally) taxes income because those at higher incomes consume more, but it also taxes wealth because those with wealth but no income consume also. It eliminates the waste built into conducting business to avoid taxes, removes the special exemptions for favored companies/industries, and it's the ultimate in transparency.
No.
Yes, to a point. However she certainly pours gasoline on that fire sometimes.
Fox definitely leans right. The news that is covered is generally balanced, but the editorial discretion is tilted to the right. The commentary is almost exclusively to the right, with the exception that they do have some on the left participate.
Yes. The fiscal problems as of 2007 are Bush's fault and he screwed us. Pelosi and Reid added more wood to the bonfire and then Obama showed up with a flame thrower.
An excellent tool for interrogating a hardened target. How about that IRS audit?
Guess which I would rather do again?No. The Republicans caved.
No. See the answer to question 11.
The United States is mostly a Christian Nation with a secular government. The general culture is based in Christianity. I don't think the culture is something the government needs to be involved in. We have freedom of religion.
No. No campaign contributions should be secret.
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #65
So apparently you have a friend and attended a Tea Party event, and didn't ask any of these questions.
Supposedly all you learned was that Tea Party people are birthers that dislike Muslims.
I don't believe anything in the OP
Well you came in late so rather than call you names or whatever, I'll just let you know that this has already been covered earlier.
Among the things they discussed were out of control spending, what is Constitutional and reducing government. I mentioned these in points 1 & 2 and thought I made it clear these were common threads but reiterated this later.
I asked about these things but everyone else there knew each other very well and I was an outsider, so I didn't want to press. Especially given that there was a moment of awkward silence when I said I disagreed with a guy on his interpretation of the USC when it came to what was meant by provide for the general welfare (I'm okay with the existence of the EPA -Gasp!).
Fortunately, they weren't overtly hostile or offended that someone might have differing opinions and not just agree with them on every single issue.
asterism
Congress != Progress
I agree completely with your list. I would go a lot further tho'. Eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy and put the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Defense Department.
Mr. Shaman
Senior Member
- May 4, 2010
- 23,892
- 822
- 48
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #69
I think it's the one issue the entire TP agrees on. There's massive differences in other areas.
True. IMO, yes on the machine gun. No on the RPG no on the Nuke. Also, I think the use of the Dept. of Education, DOT, and HHS to manipulate and encroach on the states is unconstitutional. Again just my opinion, but I think the EPA has gone way overboard.
No.
No.
I'd close most of them. I'd keep one or two in Europe, Iraq, and Japan. I'd keep Diego Garcia and GITMO. I'd put new ones in India and Austraila. I'd remove the speed bump from Korea, remove most bases from Germany, Turkey, Kuwait, the UK, and Italy.
Eliminate the Dept. of Education. It's a beast that doesn't work. Every function it serves is best done at the state and county level. Eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security. It's an ineffective conglomerate. The FBI and DOD are better suited. The TSA is a complete waste, it's ineffective, inefficient, and very poorly structured for security. If the need for security at that level is warranted, have the U.S. Marshals do it. Scale back DOT. It's silly to send money from local areas to Washington and then send that money back to the very same areas (with some pork manipulation). Roads are largely local functions anyway and they are best handled locally.
No, yes, no.
Before this was a federal monopoly, local needs were funded with local dollars. We should get back to that. We need fewer micromanaging regulations and more regulatory oversight. It should not be illegal to have cross-state private insurance pools. It should not be illegal to have voluntary ad-hoc insurance pools. We should not subsidize people who will pay $500 a month for a new car but scoff at spending $100 to visit a doctor and $13 for medication. Health insurance should be for serious and catastrophic events, not the sniffles.
It's ultimately an issue of equal protection and I support it except ideally there'd be no federal involvement in marriage.
Nope. None of the gay Marines I've served with were sissies. That's more of a Navy thing.
FairTax. It not only (generally) taxes income because those at higher incomes consume more, but it also taxes wealth because those with wealth but no income consume also. It eliminates the waste built into conducting business to avoid taxes, removes the special exemptions for favored companies/industries, and it's the ultimate in transparency.
No.
Yes, to a point. However she certainly pours gasoline on that fire sometimes.
Fox definitely leans right. The news that is covered is generally balanced, but the editorial discretion is tilted to the right. The commentary is almost exclusively to the right, with the exception that they do have some on the left participate.
Yes. The fiscal problems as of 2007 are Bush's fault and he screwed us. Pelosi and Reid added more wood to the bonfire and then Obama showed up with a flame thrower.
An excellent tool for interrogating a hardened target. How about that IRS audit?
No. The Republicans caved.
No. See the answer to question 11.
The United States is mostly a Christian Nation with a secular government. The general culture is based in Christianity. I don't think the culture is something the government needs to be involved in. We have freedom of religion.
No. No campaign contributions should be secret.
Another great post. Civil and addressed the issues! Thanxabunch. Are you a Tea Partier?
After the first several posts by Soggy in NOLA & CrusaderFrank, I was beginning to think the TP was filled with nothing but angry whackjobs who were clueless on the issues. However, the more I read post like this one, the more I begin to appreciate what the TP has to offer.
Last edited:
asterism
Congress != Progress
I think it's the one issue the entire TP agrees on. There's massive differences in other areas.
True. IMO, yes on the machine gun. No on the RPG no on the Nuke. Also, I think the use of the Dept. of Education, DOT, and HHS to manipulate and encroach on the states is unconstitutional. Again just my opinion, but I think the EPA has gone way overboard.
No.
No.
I'd close most of them. I'd keep one or two in Europe, Iraq, and Japan. I'd keep Diego Garcia and GITMO. I'd put new ones in India and Austraila. I'd remove the speed bump from Korea, remove most bases from Germany, Turkey, Kuwait, the UK, and Italy.
Eliminate the Dept. of Education. It's a beast that doesn't work. Every function it serves is best done at the state and county level. Eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security. It's an ineffective conglomerate. The FBI and DOD are better suited. The TSA is a complete waste, it's ineffective, inefficient, and very poorly structured for security. If the need for security at that level is warranted, have the U.S. Marshals do it. Scale back DOT. It's silly to send money from local areas to Washington and then send that money back to the very same areas (with some pork manipulation). Roads are largely local functions anyway and they are best handled locally.
No, yes, no.
Before this was a federal monopoly, local needs were funded with local dollars. We should get back to that. We need fewer micromanaging regulations and more regulatory oversight. It should not be illegal to have cross-state private insurance pools. It should not be illegal to have voluntary ad-hoc insurance pools. We should not subsidize people who will pay $500 a month for a new car but scoff at spending $100 to visit a doctor and $13 for medication. Health insurance should be for serious and catastrophic events, not the sniffles.
It's ultimately an issue of equal protection and I support it except ideally there'd be no federal involvement in marriage.
Nope. None of the gay Marines I've served with were sissies. That's more of a Navy thing.
FairTax. It not only (generally) taxes income because those at higher incomes consume more, but it also taxes wealth because those with wealth but no income consume also. It eliminates the waste built into conducting business to avoid taxes, removes the special exemptions for favored companies/industries, and it's the ultimate in transparency.
No.
Yes, to a point. However she certainly pours gasoline on that fire sometimes.
Fox definitely leans right. The news that is covered is generally balanced, but the editorial discretion is tilted to the right. The commentary is almost exclusively to the right, with the exception that they do have some on the left participate.
Yes. The fiscal problems as of 2007 are Bush's fault and he screwed us. Pelosi and Reid added more wood to the bonfire and then Obama showed up with a flame thrower.
An excellent tool for interrogating a hardened target. How about that IRS audit?
No. The Republicans caved.
No. See the answer to question 11.
The United States is mostly a Christian Nation with a secular government. The general culture is based in Christianity. I don't think the culture is something the government needs to be involved in. We have freedom of religion.
No. No campaign contributions should be secret.
Another great post. Civil and addressed the issues! Thanxabunch. Are you a Tea Partier?
After the first several posts by Soggy in NOLA & CrusaderFrank, I was beginning to think the TP was filled with nothing but angry whackjobs who were clueless on the issues. However, the more I read post like this one, the more I begin to appreciate what the TP has to offer.
I'm a Tea Party voter when it makes sense and I financially support certain targeted tea party candidates. I've never attended the rallies, they are too much "rah rah go team" for my tastes. But holding the line on spending is a good thing in my opinion.
You don't have to agree with all of my views, but it would be nice if more people were like you and actually listened instead of just shouting "Faux News!" for "Koch brothers!" I'd like the people like Bodecea to realize that I'm an ally and not an enemy, but some people are too far gone into their identity politics.
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #71
Well at first, I thought the Tea Party was just a bunch of whackjobs. I mean, you have to admit that anyone who isn't already in love with Michelle Bachmann, ain't gonna be unless she suddenly loses the ability to speak.
So the Tea Party meeting I went to here was nice but it wasn't like "official". I guess that other than a huge rally south of here (We're near Las Vegas), they haven't had a lot of success here. As a matter of fact, they have a really bad reputation with the casinos because I guess a bunch of them skipped out on their hotel bill for tens of thousands of dollars. Oops.
So anyway, the people I met had in common: the budget thing, the spending thing, the transparency thing. I can get behind all that. I was okay with the fact that they were all white. Some of my best friends are white! I mean, it's not like I'd want a relative to marry a ****** but I'm sure there are many white people who work and contrinute to society in a positive way.
I disagreed with them that Obama is a foreign born guy or a Muslim. Just plain whackjobbery, resulting from watching too much Glenn Beck (who I watch once in a while for kicks).
Long story short, other than that, I found it intriguing and felt like maybe they were different than say, MSNBC might portray (I'm assuming you have a sense of humor - CrusaderFank will be sh1tting his pants waiting to sling insults as if I meant that seriously, right about now). So here I am on three boards, learning from you guys.
There's a lot more positives, than meet the eye.
You and maybe a few other TP's on this board are reasonable. The rest have absolutely nothing to say on issues and come off like members of the SOSW (Society of Stupid Whackjobs). The TPers on one of the other boards seem much more intelligent and civil. They answer questions directly, respond civilly and can handle differing opinions. Like you know, regular people!
At the suggestion of another TPer and with a little of his help, I've begun to look at just how many Fed functions are duplicated at the state leve. I must confess I had no idea!
So if I can get past the Soggy Nola's and CrusaderFranks of the world, I can learn some new things. Which is cool. And as far as the whackjobs, I have fun with them anyway
So now that I've gotten all long-winded and such, let me challenge you and any other Tpers a bit. Two questions:
1. What if we eliminate say, the EPA and assign it to the states. And what if a state is broke?
2. I've lived in Detroit and Houston. In Detroit, if you want to know who owns the politician, just look in the executive offices of the Big Three Automakers. In Texas, if you want to know who has bought and paid for the politicians, just drive out to Stafford, Sugar Land or downtown to the exec offices of the Big Oil companies.
So do you really trust the politicians who are owned by these companies, to set the environmental laws that "Provide for the General Welfare"? I mean, by making it national, you have someone in Montana or Iowa or whatever looking at the standards as well. I prefer that. What say you?
Indy Terry
Indy Terry
I truly believe that the greatest threat from the Tea Party is they will ultimately push this country into similar riots to what is happening in London and other English cities. Prime Minister Cameron came out today while addressing Parliament that "gangs" were a major force of the rioting. He also cited the association between English gangs and a Boston gang. This country is certainly not short of gang/drug violence and influence.
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #73
Okay I'll bite. How are they going to do it?
asterism
Congress != Progress
Well at first, I thought the Tea Party was just a bunch of whackjobs. I mean, you have to admit that anyone who isn't already in love with Michelle Bachmann, ain't gonna be unless she suddenly loses the ability to speak.
So the Tea Party meeting I went to here was nice but it wasn't like "official". I guess that other than a huge rally south of here (We're near Las Vegas), they haven't had a lot of success here. As a matter of fact, they have a really bad reputation with the casinos because I guess a bunch of them skipped out on their hotel bill for tens of thousands of dollars. Oops.
So anyway, the people I met had in common: the budget thing, the spending thing, the transparency thing. I can get behind all that. I was okay with the fact that they were all white. Some of my best friends are white! I mean, it's not like I'd want a relative to marry a ****** but I'm sure there are many white people who work and contrinute to society in a positive way.
I disagreed with them that Obama is a foreign born guy or a Muslim. Just plain whackjobbery, resulting from watching too much Glenn Beck (who I watch once in a while for kicks).
Long story short, other than that, I found it intriguing and felt like maybe they were different than say, MSNBC might portray (I'm assuming you have a sense of humor - CrusaderFank will be sh1tting his pants waiting to sling insults as if I meant that seriously, right about now). So here I am on three boards, learning from you guys.
There's a lot more positives, than meet the eye.
You and maybe a few other TP's on this board are reasonable. The rest have absolutely nothing to say on issues and come off like members of the SOSW (Society of Stupid Whackjobs). The TPers on one of the other boards seem much more intelligent and civil. They answer questions directly, respond civilly and can handle differing opinions. Like you know, regular people!
At the suggestion of another TPer and with a little of his help, I've begun to look at just how many Fed functions are duplicated at the state leve. I must confess I had no idea!
So if I can get past the Soggy Nola's and CrusaderFranks of the world, I can learn some new things. Which is cool. And as far as the whackjobs, I have fun with them anyway
That's a good perspective.
They are ultimately responsible for their own affairs with oversight from the federal government. The issue isn't the EPA rules, it's the bureaucracy. It's a crime to pollute water. That's a DOJ function. In many cases the states already have their own environmental restrictions and enforcement mechanism. I'm not suggesting we do away with the concept of federal and state oversight, just get rid of the duplication and massive arbitrary enforcement mechanisms that don't really manage to protect much at all. It does not take a federal employee to oversee each and every Environmental Impact Study that has already been proven to comply with more stringent state requirements.
I think it just replaces one "owner" with another. There was a Home Depot proposed on a site that sits on the headwaters of a creek that flows into the St. John's river in Jacksonville. It was denied due to the environmental impact. The site was already developed but the EPA blocked building the actual store. There's a Whole Foods there now. How did they get permission? They gave money to environmental groups and that "mitigated" the damage. As a bonus, they got to build a store on a developed piece of property that was virtually worthless at the time.
Diane Feinstein was personally involved in this. So you have a California politician picking the winners and losers for a Florida business. If this is the system we have to accept, I'd rather it be as local as possible.
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #75
They are ultimately responsible for their own affairs with oversight from the federal government. The issue isn't the EPA rules, it's the bureaucracy. It's a crime to pollute water. That's a DOJ function. In many cases the states already have their own environmental restrictions and enforcement mechanism. I'm not suggesting we do away with the concept of federal and state oversight, just get rid of the duplication and massive arbitrary enforcement mechanisms that don't really manage to protect much at all. It does not take a federal employee to oversee each and every Environmental Impact Study that has already been proven to comply with more stringent state requirements.
One of the single best explanations I've seen on this.
I think it just replaces one "owner" with another. There was a Home Depot proposed on a site that sits on the headwaters of a creek that flows into the St. John's river in Jacksonville. It was denied due to the environmental impact. The site was already developed but the EPA blocked building the actual store. There's a Whole Foods there now. How did they get permission? They gave money to environmental groups and that "mitigated" the damage. As a bonus, they got to build a store on a developed piece of property that was virtually worthless at the time.
Diane Feinstein was personally involved in this. So you have a California politician picking the winners and losers for a Florida business. If this is the system we have to accept, I'd rather it be as local as possible.
Okay, so we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. There is no way in hell I would trust the local politicians in MI to regulate or oversee the environment there. THat was pretty much the situation in the 50's, 60's and into the 70's. What regulation and oversight occured? None. It wasn't until some danm Liberals from other states, as well as Canada made a huge fuss that the damage by the Big Three was ever challenged. By then, the joke was that you could walk across Lake Erie without ever getting wet. Just about every form of life in the Rouge River was dead. And for thirty years, there was no one from the state to report it to the Fed. When they finally did, it was determined that the state legislature had eliminated all that nasty, liberal, unnecessary government regulation to such a point, that none of the auto manufacturers was found guilty of committing a single crime.
And trust Texas politicians to set the standards, regulations for say Gulf rig valves for example? To never look the other way? Not while I have a vote on it.
Your example is good and I've never been a big fan of Feinstein anyway. So although I'm sure there are lots of examples like the one you made, there are also ones like mine.
The other thing is that I've always been a proponent of nuke power. I have my concerns and they've increased lately but still on the pro-side. However, if standards were left to states? Get rid of the NRC? Would never go for that either. Scary juju!
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
They won't answer your questions (not even the most superficial ones). They won't even try.
Cognitive dissonance is a *****.
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Like refusing to raise the debt ceiling and trashing our economy even worse than the compromise?
Real fiscal sanity there.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
I know. You cons live on soundbites. Actually having to think about something - in depth - is anathema to what you are....
All of IL questions are relevant and worth discussing....if you have an IQ over 50....
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
WTF? You reading the same list? Get over your petty self...Oh, that's right, you must be a TPartier....skin so transaprent we can see the cold blood in your veins..
IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
- Thread starter
- #80
Not all the TPers or Conservs dodge, insult, change the subject or Cut & Run like bigfoot, CursaderFrank or Soggy in Nola. There have already been a lot of great replies from other TPers here.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
🚨 TX-23's GOP nominee Brandon Herrera owns Mein Kampf...and that’s just the start- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 15
-
