Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see all the time that the members of the Tea Party cry out to anyone who would listen, that the government should play a smaller role in the everyday average Joe's life; who would enjoy nothing more than to kick back not have to think or worry and enjoy his iconic relationship with cheap ****ty beer that comes in cans of six.
Being honest though I don't listen much to what is being said by these people, not because they have unrealistic views or views that don't pull at the strings of common sense(if only lightly)but because the leaders and close associates of the Tea Party are blatant hypocrites that are no better than any other party to try and call themselves mainstream.
Take for instance Michelle Bachmann from the state Minnesota where I live, she is very closely involved with the Tea Party movement and every time she is speaking at length; Michelle never fails in mentioning that the role of government should play less of a role in the average United States citizens life and how government socialism is a horrible thing that is threatening to destroy out country.
Now if you know just a few facts about her background and where she comes from this is a glaring hypocrisy on her part as her father in-law who up until his death in 06 was a farmer who received over $250,000 in federal crop subsidies. To seal the deal on her stank of BS, she has personal stake in this farm which has earned her a nice annual income of just under $50,000 in 2008. This makes a person really think twice about taking the Tea Party seriously and only leads a person like me who sees this crap on a weekly basis, want to gag on the stench of her lies.
Anyways.. I will give you soldiers of the Tea Party a chance to truthfully explain one topic, Prohibition. How does the Tea Party stand on this topic that involves a direct statement and view of your party. That being anti-government and anti-socialism, please be honest because I will check anything that seems like honesty especially if you try to give a source.
Regardless of your answers however I will never vote for a Tea Party candidate, your parties hypocrisy has been proven time and again to me by both action and words and you are no better than the Bush administration.
I just haven't seen this brought up at all by your party and have been wondering why such a anti-government subject like ending prohibition and the war on drugs has been so greatly ignored by a party that screams fiscal responsibility and anti-government is a good thing for our country.
I see all the time that the members of the Tea Party cry out to anyone who would listen, that the government should play a smaller role in the everyday average Joe's life; who would enjoy nothing more than to kick back not have to think or worry and enjoy his iconic relationship with cheap ****ty beer that comes in cans of six.
Being honest though I don't listen much to what is being said by these people, not because they have unrealistic views or views that don't pull at the strings of common sense(if only lightly)but because the leaders and close associates of the Tea Party are blatant hypocrites that are no better than any other party to try and call themselves mainstream.
Take for instance Michelle Bachmann from the state Minnesota where I live, she is very closely involved with the Tea Party movement and every time she is speaking at length; Michelle never fails in mentioning that the role of government should play less of a role in the average United States citizens life and how government socialism is a horrible thing that is threatening to destroy out country.
Now if you know just a few facts about her background and where she comes from this is a glaring hypocrisy on her part as her father in-law who up until his death in 06 was a farmer who received over $250,000 in federal crop subsidies. To seal the deal on her stank of BS, she has personal stake in this farm which has earned her a nice annual income of just under $50,000 in 2008. This makes a person really think twice about taking the Tea Party seriously and only leads a person like me who sees this crap on a weekly basis, want to gag on the stench of her lies.
Anyways.. I will give you soldiers of the Tea Party a chance to truthfully explain one topic, Prohibition. How does the Tea Party stand on this topic that involves a direct statement and view of your party. That being anti-government and anti-socialism, please be honest because I will check anything that seems like honesty especially if you try to give a source.
Regardless of your answers however I will never vote for a Tea Party candidate, your parties hypocrisy has been proven time and again to me by both action and words and you are no better than the Bush administration.
I just haven't seen this brought up at all by your party and have been wondering why such a anti-government subject like ending prohibition and the war on drugs has been so greatly ignored by a party that screams fiscal responsibility and anti-government is a good thing for our country.
tea party movements are based on the following core values;
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
I got this for a south Florida tea party sites. Most sites and groups run on these core values.
How does the tea party feel about the war on drugs?
I do not know what the cost is for federal dollars, however I believe reducing spending is primary to the movement. If the war on drugs is costing us trillions of dollars I'm sure it would be a target.
tea party is about a general philosophy of lowering taxes and stop the wild spending.
I do not understand how someone supports more spending more taxes when we run such deficits and debt.
When is enough spending and borrowing on our kids credit cards enough?
I do not see he Democrats concerned what is their plan to reduce these trillion dollar a year deficits?
tea party movements are based on the following core values;
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
I got this for a south Florida tea party sites. Most sites and groups run on these core values.
How does the tea party feel about the war on drugs?
I do not know what the cost is for federal dollars, however I believe reducing spending is primary to the movement. If the war on drugs is costing us trillions of dollars I'm sure it would be a target.
tea party is about a general philosophy of lowering taxes and stop the wild spending.
I do not understand how someone supports more spending more taxes when we run such deficits and debt.
When is enough spending and borrowing on our kids credit cards enough?
I do not see he Democrats concerned what is their plan to reduce these trillion dollar a year deficits?
I'm not answering questions in this thread, it was made so people in the Tea Party who have specific and solid information on party stance regarding Prohibition and the War on Drugs; can give that information and explain what their candidate would do in regards to the same topic.
I do not want general BS about core values of the party.
I want information on a specific topic, namely Prohibition.
If you need to know the cost and statistics of our current prohibition in the United States of America go here..
The only thing the TEA PARTY wants is to keep government small enough to prevent it from taxing the plutocrats making millions + per year and providing "handouts" to anyone that is not a white working class American. They do not want any government money to go to the poor. They want a government that is too small to regulate the stock and financial markets to prevent speculative booms. The TEA PARTY is owned by the rich and powerful and operated for the benefit of those that already are the beneficiaries of massive government borrowing and spending.
The only thing the TEA PARTY wants is to keep government small enough to prevent it from taxing the plutocrats making millions + per year and providing "handouts" to anyone that is not a white working class American. They do not want any government money to go to the poor. They want a government that is too small to regulate the stock and financial markets to prevent speculative booms. The TEA PARTY is owned by the rich and powerful and operated for the benefit of those that already are the beneficiaries of massive government borrowing and spending.
Thanks for the bump but even if you are actually speaking Tea Party stance there, please keep the topic on the party stance regarding Prohibition and what you know of it.
If this party wants to participate in the political system then they need to be able to answer specific questions about specific topics. If this is not possible then maybe they need to bake their party line opinions a little bit longer.
Well, as one who is supportive of what most Tea Partiers are, regarding govt. size/spending, more govt. invasiveness, corruption, etc. etc.
I for one, am very much AGAINST a continuation of the status quo on our nation's long- LOST....."War on Drugs."
It has been a colossal waste of our tax dollars since Nixon's day!
And.....especially since far too much of this "war" has been against marijuana users, I believe that continued prohibition of marijuana, if nothing else......MUST end and be given the legitimacy it deserves, as a safe alternative to many, many other LEGAL prescrip. drugs, as well as alcohol.
I disagree with laws that are effectively, unenforcable (due to such a high percentage of opposition) regarding their illegality. Also, policies like this one and others......that are all bogged in futility, (with the end result being HELL).....reached by the road they paved with their "good intentions"......... are STUPID and can easily be construed as a form of insanity to continue!
All this from one who IS very supportive of what the Tea Party stands for and has evolved into.
Well, as one who is supportive of what most Tea Partiers are, regarding govt. size/spending, more govt. invasiveness, corruption, etc. etc.
I for one, am very much AGAINST a continuation of the status quo on our nation's long- LOST....."War on Drugs."
It has been a colossal waste of our tax dollars since Nixon's day!
And.....especially since far too much of this "war" has been against marijuana users, I believe that continued prohibition of marijuana, if nothing else......MUST end and be given the legitimacy it deserves, as a safe alternative to many, many other LEGAL prescrip. drugs, as well as alcohol.
I disagree with laws that are effectively, unenforcable (due to such a high percentage of opposition) regarding their illegality. Also, policies like this one and others......that are all bogged in futility, (with the end result being HELL).....reached by the road they paved with their "good intentions"......... are STUPID and can easily be construed as a form of insanity to continue!
All this from one who IS very supportive of what the Tea Party stands for and has evolved into.
Well that is good you are aware of the issue, but are you an official representative of your party that can say with supportive documented evidence beyond party core jargon; that the way your candidate would run things in office would effectively work to ending prohibition and the war on drugs?
I'm not answering questions in this thread, it was made so people in the Tea Party who have specific and solid information on party stance regarding Prohibition and the War on Drugs; can give that information and explain what their candidate would do in regards to the same topic.
I do not want general BS about core values of the party.
I want information on a specific topic, namely Prohibition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keroppininja
please keep the topic on the party stance regarding Prohibition and what you know of it.
If this party wants to participate in the political system then they need to be able to answer specific questions about specific topics. If this is not possible then maybe they need to bake their party line opinions a little bit longer.
Goodness, dont be so rude and bossy. People will reply in "your" thread the way they feel like replying.
Goodness, dont be so rude and bossy. People will reply in "your" thread the way they feel like replying.
What? Are you aware what forum you are participating in??
Reply as you like of course but I'd like to get a straight answer from the official party line opinion on the issue; skewing it with information not related or blatantly partisan remarks do not get desired results or answers and only serve to turn the discussion into another worthless thread. Additionally if you want to see rude go and look at the hundreds of other literally rabid worthless threads.
I have not seen anything stated regarding prohibition by anyone in this thread who claims to be part of the Tea Party, that is reflected by the candidates and politicians who they choose to have represent the party.
I'm not answering questions in this thread, it was made so people in the Tea Party who have specific and solid information on party stance regarding Prohibition and the War on Drugs; can give that information and explain what their candidate would do in regards to the same topic.
I do not want general BS about core values of the party.
I want information on a specific topic, namely Prohibition.
If you need to know the cost and statistics of our current prohibition in the United States of America go here..
Do you mean laws that regulate or ban recreational drugs in general?
If so, I am unsure if an "official" stance has been created on such an exact issue, as was mentioned, the general position of the Party has been to lessen the role of federal government and reduce its taxes in the process while supporting the Constitution above all.
An important point in this is that the federal government is not the state. The idea behind a republic in its design is proper representation that filters up to properly represent the people of each area. States themselves are under their own management and the laws they implement are representative of their own populations.
Madison in the Federalist no. 10 specifically spoke concerning the issue of imbalance with representation and of that note, the federal government imposing general declarations upon the country violates this concept of proper representation as no single law can represent ALL in its merit and so this governance in issues such as you mentioned should be reserved to the states, not the federal government which is a goal to reducing federal government size (the states should manage themselves, not the federal government).
Now, as how the party would feel concerning this at a state level and that of constitutional protection, I think the matter becomes an issue of fact concerning the use of drugs and their statistical occurrence to the general health of the population. Note, I am not talking about the general health of the individual, this is the responsibility of the individual and not the authority of the state or any majority opinion to dictate.
What I am talking about is the general health based on the consistent consequences of the use of such drugs and the violations it causes on those near or around the individual who partakes in the drug use.
Obviously, if we measure such by this understanding than some drugs which are currently banned would have no proper support for doing such. Cannabis bans would then be unconstitutional in its position as no consistent case or immediate danger or violation of individual rights can be displayed through its use. So this is one, if the party is holding to their proper belief, that should be lifted.
Yet there are drugs that are consistently shown to violate the rights of others through their use. Drugs that even with good intentions, and planned use still eventually result in the infringement of others from their use. For instance, PCP is a drug that can be properly and consistently shown to be of such a danger due to the state of mind the individual takes on through its use. The risks of this persons actions harming or violating the rights of others is consistent in that the person under the influence loses rational thought, taking on a state of mind that is identified as legally insane.
Due to that, it is well within the bounds of the people in order to properly protect the rights of others, that it be banned.
Now there are some drugs that follow a slippery slope, yet through analysis are statistically consistent in their effect. These would be narcotics to which are extremely addictive and also provide a sense of mental state to which while not as severe of that of PCP, result in behavior that often results in the violation of another.
For instance, take methamphetamine. While its immediate use is not such that would place a person in a state of mind that results in such dangers to others, its extended use does. The result of such extended use is consistent and the fact that the drug is extremely addictive, it is highly likely that those will end up in scenarios to which result in the violation of others individual rights (theft, violence, etc...). This is also an issue with various other drugs of like qualities.
So there are reasonable means to why some of these drugs are banned as they can be reasonably shown to endanger the public, even through well intended use. Now you might be considering why isn't alcohol banned as it can also display such a level of addiction and result in actions that infringe on others (drunk driving, violence, theft, etc...), but the fact is that statistically in occurrence, it is far less consistent than that the other drugs and alcohol does not carry the immediate addiction level that these other drugs carry, meaning that most people do not become addicted through casual moderate use, while it is consistently shown that through like usage of other drugs to which are banned, they do consistently show a direction to their addiction and later on consequences of such without control of individual using them.
If we leave these issues to "situational" relying on the individual to choose and be responsible for the consequences, the results due to the statistics of their occurrence, would be a far higher rate occurrence in the violations of individual rights due to the nature of the drug and the consistency in their effect.
There are drugs though that are improperly classified as such and should not be such as drugs like cannabis. The problem with cannabis is that it was labeled early on to be just as detrimental as those more harsh drugs. We know its use is not of such a nature and its effects and use are in line with that of alcohol. So this would be an area that should be lifted in its ban as there is no supporting evidence to place it in the same consistency of occurrence as the others.
I do not say this out of support for it. Personally, I dislike its use, but it poses no risks to others in its use (the claim it is a gateway drug is a rather weak one and Alcohol could be argued in like manners) and so should be left to the individual to decide.
Basically, some prohibition exits to protect the public and is reasonably and consistently shown as to why. These are within the bounds of restricting as they specifically serve the protections of the constitution and support individual choice (remember, if it is shown that through the use of such, the result is violations on others, then banning it protects people if only by law).
Some as I explained are simply dictations to the people (often based on majority subject opinion) and should be lifted with all drugs evaluated to the issues I spoke to place it consistently within the bounds of the protections of the people and the individual choice of those who may use them.
Now, as was said, this is not a position that is "official" in its stance as the official position of the party is one that is more general in its base goals. It is those goals though that lead to the assessments to which I described above. As long as less government, individual choice, while protecting individual rights as per the constitution is the focus, then any issue to which you bring up can properly be assessed within these bounds. This is why specific stances are not as important as the foundation to which these stances derive and it is those foundations to which the basis of the party supports, regardless of individual "perceptions" between each of those in its membership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
