Why hate the responsible government movement?

[AvgGuyIA]

Do either of the major tea party groups have a published platform? I'd love to read it. The problem I have with many of the tea party members is their leaning toward social conservatism. Sorry, but I don't get along with bible thumpers.

-TSO

Let me guess. You want the freedom to jack off in public and can't abide to associate with any group where some of its members would find that socially offensive?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Do either of the major tea party groups have a published platform? I'd love to read it. The problem I have with many of the tea party members is their leaning toward social conservatism. Sorry, but I don't get along with bible thumpers.

-TSO

Let me guess. You want the freedom to jack off in public and can't abide to associate with any group where some of its members would find that socially offensive?

So you've guessed, and you've guess wrong. Please try again.

-TSO

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Not as bad as I feared it would be. Most of it is quite reasonable.

I cringe whenever I read State's Rights in a document though. While I agree that the 10th Ammendment reserves certain powers to the State's, too often State's Rights is a code word for racists and dominionists. I'd be interesting in following up exactly what is meant by that plank so as to eliminate any ambiguity.

Really whats wrong with one state having a religion like massachusetts and another not ,like Utah?

There is no state religion in either of those states.

-TSO

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Sounds good to me.

That's great, but it isn't a platform. It's a party based on very vague ideas. I was looking for more specifics. What is their idea for tax revenue? What is their thought on items like gays in the military, what are their thoughts on the teaching of ID in public schools. There are a lot of things that aren't covered in what I provided. I would like answers to these and other questions before I jump into a movement without all of the facts.

-TSO

 

[Si modo]

Sounds good to me.

That's great, but it isn't a platform. It's a party based on very vague ideas. I was looking for more specifics. What is their idea for tax revenue? What is their thought on items like gays in the military, what are their thoughts on the teaching of ID in public schools. There are a lot of things that aren't covered in what I provided. I would like answers to these and other questions before I jump into a movement without all of the facts.

-TSO

Hmmm. As they are for limited government, you cannot figure out what they think about gays in the military or government and public school curriculum?

 

[FireGod]

Not as bad as I feared it would be. Most of it is quite reasonable.

I cringe whenever I read State's Rights in a document though. While I agree that the 10th Ammendment reserves certain powers to the State's, too often State's Rights is a code word for racists and dominionists. I'd be interesting in following up exactly what is meant by that plank so as to eliminate any ambiguity.

Really whats wrong with one state having a religion like massachusetts and another not ,like Utah?

Forbidden by the US Constitution.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Sounds good to me.

That's great, but it isn't a platform. It's a party based on very vague ideas. I was looking for more specifics. What is their idea for tax revenue? What is their thought on items like gays in the military, what are their thoughts on the teaching of ID in public schools. There are a lot of things that aren't covered in what I provided. I would like answers to these and other questions before I jump into a movement without all of the facts.

-TSO

Hmmm. As they are for limited government, you cannot figure out what they think about gays in the military or government and public school curriculum?

That's correct. Being for limited goverment can mean, the elimination of public schools, it could mean they think the IRS should be eliminated, I have even seen thouse who preach limited goverment suggest that gays should be prevented from amrriage. Until there is a writen platform, it's really hard to know what they want.

-TSO

 

[Si modo]

That's great, but it isn't a platform. It's a party based on very vague ideas. I was looking for more specifics. What is their idea for tax revenue? What is their thought on items like gays in the military, what are their thoughts on the teaching of ID in public schools. There are a lot of things that aren't covered in what I provided. I would like answers to these and other questions before I jump into a movement without all of the facts.

-TSO

Hmmm. As they are for limited government, you cannot figure out what they think about gays in the military or government and public school curriculum?

That's correct. Being for limited goverment can mean, the elimination of public schools, it could mean they think the IRS should be eliminated, I have even seen thouse who preach limited goverment suggest that gays should be prevented from amrriage. Until there is a writen platform, it's really hard to know what they want.

-TSO

Well, "constitutionally limited government" answers your questions.

 

[EriktheRed]

What is wrong with cutting spending and not taxing your grandchildren or your abortion abortions in to poverty ?
Why not not give them a chance ? why so greedy?

Lemme answer that question with another...


What's wrong with paying for what you get?



Edit: whoops! Proofreading's your friend, eh?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Hmmm. As they are for limited government, you cannot figure out what they think about gays in the military or government and public school curriculum?

That's correct. Being for limited goverment can mean, the elimination of public schools, it could mean they think the IRS should be eliminated, I have even seen thouse who preach limited goverment suggest that gays should be prevented from amrriage. Until there is a writen platform, it's really hard to know what they want.

-TSO

Well, "constitutionally limited government" answers your questions.

No it doesn't.

-TSO

 

[Darkwind]

Not as bad as I feared it would be. Most of it is quite reasonable.

I cringe whenever I read State's Rights in a document though. While I agree that the 10th Ammendment reserves certain powers to the State's, too often State's Rights is a code word for racists and dominionists. I'd be interesting in following up exactly what is meant by that plank so as to eliminate any ambiguity.

that is pretty much a blatant falsehood.

People who speak of States Rights do so for the sole purpose of returning to a Constitutional country. Today, far to many people justify having, holding and abusing power based upon name calling just like this. They count on you and people like you to make these kinds of arguments for the sole purpose of keeping those in the Federal government in power.

Just like your arguments of legitimacy. I have found that when people start talking of legitimacy, they do so under the rubric of, "You are not legitimate unless you agree with me".

So lets drop the BS about States Rights being a code for racism.

 

[Si modo]

That's correct. Being for limited goverment can mean, the elimination of public schools, it could mean they think the IRS should be eliminated, I have even seen thouse who preach limited goverment suggest that gays should be prevented from amrriage. Until there is a writen platform, it's really hard to know what they want.

-TSO

Well, "constitutionally limited government" answers your questions.

No it doesn't.

-TSO

OK. We'll go slowly for you.

The Constitution gives government little rights to knowledge of your personal affairs - sexual orientation is covered there.

The Constitution gives government little power in setting curricula in schools and in setting curriculum for one's child's education. Few of us think there is any need for a Department of Education. So, that question of yours is answered twice - 'constitutionally limited government" and fiscal responsibility.

QED.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Until they specifically call out these points they are being vague. It's easy to say they are Constitutionalists, but until they have a formal platform in place, or candidates in which follow their platform, it's kinda tough to say what they will do once in a position of power. Ron paul makes a lot of claims for limited goverment spending, and even goes as far as voting against these measures, however, if you look into the situation, you find his district gets a lot of pork...how exactly do those projects get added to bills?

-TSO

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Not as bad as I feared it would be. Most of it is quite reasonable.

I cringe whenever I read State's Rights in a document though. While I agree that the 10th Ammendment reserves certain powers to the State's, too often State's Rights is a code word for racists and dominionists. I'd be interesting in following up exactly what is meant by that plank so as to eliminate any ambiguity.

Really whats wrong with one state having a religion like massachusetts and another not ,like Utah?

Give that situation a generation or two and you'll have outright Civil War.

That, and even though I share the same Lord and Savior as say, the Baptists, I have serious doctrinal issues with them as a Lutheran. I'm no more happy with the idea of an official Baptist sanctioned state religion than I am with a Muslim sanctioned state religion.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So lets drop the BS about States Rights being a code for racism.

Darkwind,

It has been so in the past. It has also been a popular rally cry for dominionists.

I'm all for State's Rights. I do not believe that even half of the entitlement programs are Constitutional. At best, they should be administered and ran at the State Level.

I want to see specifics. If you're using State's Rights to argue that Indiana should be able to declare the United Methodists a State sanctioned official Church, then that needs to be stopped. If you want to use State's Rights to try to roll back the Voting Rights Acts, that needs to be stopped.

If you want the Federal government out of the entitlement business, then we have common ground.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent.

I'd add, this is the other plank in the platform I have a small issue with. The Founders as a group could barely agree on anything. I believe that there might have been a few rare things in the Constitution that the Founder's agreed on, but past that, original intent arguments strike me as pretty flimsy. When you say "Original Intent," you can't surely mean the whole group of Founders, and if you don't, who's goals and ideas are you following?

 

[Oldandtired]

Most of the "hate" is because the Tea Bagger movement is seen publicly as being made up of hypocrites, Johnny Come-Latelys, Birthers, and Racists.

I personally don't hate the Tea Bagger movement, I just don't care much for them. I believe that there is probably a core group in the movement that are reasonably educated about government, disagreed with the Bush/DeLay/Frist era GOP, and represent an attempt to get back sane and reasonable government. I can sympathize with those individuals and get behind their beliefs.

The problem is that the loudest members of the movement seem to be the cranks. That's driving any legitimacy the Tea Party movement had down the tubes.

The reason the "cranks" are the loudest is becuse the media seeks them out.

I was at a tea party in Manhattan. My entire time there (with over 10,000 people) I saw a total of 3 signs that had an Obama Hitler, a Pelosi "wicked witch" and the word "Blood" on a sign...Most signs said "stop the spending" and "lower our taxes" and "listen to the people"......

Yet, on the news that night, all I saw were the hitler, wicked witch and blood posters and the people holding them.....close ups.

The only interview the reporter aired was the jerk with the hitler sign.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What is wrong with cutting spending and not taxing your grandchildren or your abortion abortions in to poverty ?
Why not not give them a chance ? why so greedy?

Lemme pose that question with another...


What's wrong with paying for what you get?

I dont have a problem with that ,why make unborn generation pay when they wont get anything for it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Not as bad as I feared it would be. Most of it is quite reasonable.

I cringe whenever I read State's Rights in a document though. While I agree that the 10th Ammendment reserves certain powers to the State's, too often State's Rights is a code word for racists and dominionists. I'd be interesting in following up exactly what is meant by that plank so as to eliminate any ambiguity.

Really whats wrong with one state having a religion like massachusetts and another not ,like Utah?

Forbidden by the US Constitution.

Really?
are you that stupid?

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm

 

[American Horse]

Until they specifically call out these points they are being vague. It's easy to say they are Constitutionalists, but until they have a formal platform in place, or candidates in which follow their platform, it's kinda tough to say what they will do once in a position of power. Ron paul makes a lot of claims for limited goverment spending, and even goes as far as voting against these measures, however, if you look into the situation, you find his district gets a lot of pork...how exactly do those projects get added to bills?

-TSO

Tea Party members don’t call them selves “Tea Baggers” that is a pejorative term used by those who ridicule rather than take them seriously. They call themselves “Tea Partiers” and in their movement (it is not a party), they call themselves "Tea Party Patriots."

Following is a list of the 33 top ideas they are for, in descending order, as promoted by members and in the order of their rating among the Tea Party panel. They are in idea stage, and they are being refined, and reduced down into a "Contract From America" similar in concept to the "Contract With America" very effectively used by the GOP in 1994.


Promoted Ideas - These popular ideas from each topic have been selected by the Contract From America panel.

Implement the Fair Tax 9322 rating
Legislation shall contain no unrelated amendments 4808 rating
Congressional Term Limits 4189 rating
Abolish the Department of Education 3730 rating
Pass Nationwide Medical Malpractice Tort Reform 3371 rating

No lifetime salary or benefits for Congress 3248 rating
Congress shall not exempt themselves 3144 rating
An Official Language of the United States 3112 rating
Drill Here, Drill Now 3097 rating
Interstate Health Insurance Competition 2952 rating

cite Constitutional authority for creating laws 2329 rating
Nuclear Energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil 1881 rating
More Drilling for Natural Gas and Oil, Increase Nuclear Energy, and eliminate federal regulation and give power back to the states 1183 rating
2nd Amendment Rights 1075 rating

Federal Spending Limitations - Budget Cap 1061 rating
Presidential advisers (czars) shall have no regulatory authority 964 rating
Bills from the House or Senate are to be Made Public 7 Days Before any Vote 921 rating
Post all government expenditures on the Internet 636 rating
Hands OFF the Internet 538 rating

Abolish the Department of Energy. 534 rating
Congress Must Name Relevant Special Interests When They Vote 334 rating
Amend the Endangered Species Act 285 rating
Create independent Ethics Committees for House and Senate 256 rating
Zero Based Budgeting 234 rating

Repeal CAFE Standards 227 rating
No Raises 199 rating
Make legislators accountable for their legislation. 158 rating
Offer Tax Free Prizes for Energy Innovations 126 rating
Alternative to Term Limits - Reduce/Eliminate Benefits 108 rating

Market Based Approach to Reduce Global Warming 108 rating
Pledge to Cut Deficit by 70% in Two Years With No New Taxes 95 rating
High Hurdle for Spending Amendment 92 rating