A question for liberals about the tea party (independent, economy, government)

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by wade52

The teabaggers are coming to the end of their string.

In your mind only. What do you think has been the motivating force behind what is now begining to look like a Republican win on the current debate?

I am sure I am not the only conservative that has been faxing, nearly daily, asking my Representative and my Senator (at least the one Republican), to stand firm, and not to give in to the unreasonable demands of Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who refuse to negotiate, and refuse to pass spending bills to fund needed services, preferring instead, to let the government shut down continue for as long as they think it helps their cause (this was their plan all along).

The Democrat Party is clearly the Party of NO.

NO to negotiating. No to passing nedded spending bill that are awaiting their action, and No to extending the personal mandate, as they have extended it for Barack Obamas chosen businesses.

The Democrat Party = No, No, Hell No!

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by NoJiveMan

Smear campaign? You do mean like the smear campaign launched against Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections, correct? With the teabaggers toting signs depicting Obama as a socialist, marxist, monkey with a bone in his nose/hair, nazi-signs showing Obama with a Hitler type mustache, and on, and on, and on, tell us please, that those people did not represent the teabaggers. Some even wore and brought firearms to Obama's and democrat town hall meetings, you mean, those teabaggers?

Yeah, is it any wonder why anyone would dislike a teabagger?

A "smear campaign" is what Democrats do.

Exposing the truth is not a "smear." Obama is a Marxist/Socialist (that is what a Progressive is). Have you ever wondered why he was a member of the Marxist-Socialist group at Occidental College, named the Political Awareness Fellowship? The group was founded by his Marxist friend, John Drew (who has since repudiated his former beliefs). Read about it here.

There are many more links to Obama and his radical ties (to Bill Ayers and many others). Why is it a smear to make those ties to Leftist extremism known?

By the way, do you have any proof of signs from any Tea Party showing Obama with a bone in his nose?

Isn't it YOU who are conducting a smear campaign?

[Greg_IA]

Originally Posted by bUU

First and foremost, in the process of doing their damage to the GOP, they're doing damage to the nation as a whole, by fostering an environment where egoistic avarice is rationalized.

Second, many of us see a great value in having two legitimate parties that move the nation in a controlled matter toward progress. The destruction of the Republican party does not serve that. Rather, the building up of a strong, centrist Republican Party, repudiating the offensive nonsense of the TPs, does that.

The two parties are growing the government, taking our liberties, and stealing our money from our treasury for their own personal gain. We have too many politicians and bureaucrats who are more interested in being part of the elite and powerful ruling class than representatives of the people. They don't want to serve the public, they want to control us.

The TEA Party wants to rein that in.

[wade52]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

In your mind only. What do you think has been the motivating force behind what is now begining to look like a Republican win on the current debate?

I am sure I am not the only conservative that has been faxing, nearly daily, asking my Representative and my Senator (at least the one Republican), to stand firm, and not to give in to the unreasonable demands of Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who refuse to negotiate, and refuse to pass spending bills to fund needed services, preferring instead, to let the government shut down continue for as long as they think it helps their cause (this was their plan all along).

The Democrat Party is clearly the Party of NO.

NO to negotiating. No to passing nedded spending bill that are awaiting their action, and No to extending the personal mandate, as they have extended it for Barack Obamas chosen businesses.

The Democrat Party = No, No, Hell No!

Amusing.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Greg_IA

The TEA Party wants to rein that in.

That's bull. The vast majority of TP supporters are in it for the money, not self-determination. That's what's wrong with TP the most: They have confused themselves with their financial assets.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

I see post after post in here decrying the tea party.
They are racist
evil
old
trolls
warlocks who hate woman
going to destroy the republican party.
He Liberals if it was all so true then why would you be so concerned in stopping them?
Seems you would understand if the tea party was everything you say they are then it would guarantee a liberal win in every election..
So Liberals why do you want them stopped and what is the point of the labels attacks and smear campaign?

I, like lots of other independents disappointed in the GOP lately, see the TP as symbolic of everything that's wrong with current "conservatism" that's been overtaken by angry, ignorant religious zealots. Until the Republicans can separate themselves from these knee-jerk reactionaries, then your prediction of liberal wins will probably come true.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by bUU

TP supporters aren't conservatives, they're reactionaries.

We are conservatives. You apparently do not know what a conservative is. I'm betting you think a conservative is someone like John McCain, who is a Democrat with an elephant pin on his lapel.

Originally Posted by bUU

It's scary how little TP supporters understand the movement they support.

Sorry. It is you who are lacking in knoweldge.

Originally Posted by bUU

The nation was never how TP advocacy is trying to make it.

Can you describe how you think the Tea Party is trying to make it?

Originally Posted by bUU

If you think it was, then give us a specific year... tell us what specific year you're aiming to go back to. That will at least provide a context for (a) explaining to you the differences between how the nation was that year and what the TP objectives are trying to bring about, and (b) explaining to you what progress has been made in the human condition has been made since that year, that accounts for some of the changes that did occur in this regard, so you can clearly state that in supporting the TP you're also supporting rolling back those advances in society - so you can clearly state that you support reversing those advancements in freedom and justice for those who were previously oppressed by our society, so we can see the true exclusionary nature of the offensive perspectives you support.

The mistake you and others make is articulated in your above question. What makes you think that we who identify with the 'Tea Party' are "aiming to go back" to some previous and specific time in history?

Such an absurd claim is totally without any merit whatsoever.

Originally Posted by bUU

Tell us which year. Don't equivocate. Don't dodge the question. Four characters.

Here's a very partial list of examples of American progress, just off the top of my head:

Anti-slavery
Anti-corruption
Public sanitation, building safety
Women's Suffrage, minority voting rights
Anti-child labor
Workplace Safety, fair wages and working conditions
Social Security and Medicare
Civil Rights in the workplace and in housing
Consumer protection, food safety, fair commerce

Do you really believe that anyone thinks that those things are not good?

I would only take issue with no. 2 on your list, above: It would seem as though there is no lack of corruption in our current administration, and in fact, corruption has been on the increase, what with the IRS targeting individuals and groups, as directed by the administration and identified by it as "enemies;" i.e., groups with "Tea Party" in their name or other conservative groups that the administration does not like. Other corruption such as the recent revealation of private tax information being provided to administration officials. Also, the matter of the Justice Department under Eric Holder, stirring up racial anger and resentment (Zimmerman trial) in order to influence local law enforcement to bring charges against a man who, when attacked by a black teen thug, legally defended himself (enough has already been written on that case; I will not discuss it further here). Eric Holder refusing to charge Black Panthers at the polls who were engaged in voter intimidation.

Those are only a few cases. There are many more examples.

We have a Constitution, which specifies the powers of the various branches of government, and limits those powers. The intent of the Constituion was a government that was limited, so as to not become tyrannical, as we have seen in recent years. This has happened because the Constitution is being ignored and subverted at every level, not the least example which is ObamaCare, and how it was passed, without ever having been debated openly, much less read.

The 'Tea Party' movement advocates return to Constitutional government, and sound economic principles. It does not advocate, as you suggest, returning to some period of time in our history. That would not only be impossible, it would be a ridiculous and futile mission.

But, returning to Constitutional principles is possible, and if we are to survive as a free people, it is necessary that we do so.

The Constitution is a timeless document, it's principles applicable to the future as well as they were applicable to the past, and it has provided a means for Amendments as may become necessary, but these should not be done in haste, or arbitrarily, but should be carefully considered, and with open and serious debate.

Originally Posted by bUU

False. Even our founders said it wasn't going to be close to perfect, that it would need to change with the times. Our founders were progressives, not reactionaries. You keep forgetting that.

What I said was "nearly perfect." No, the founders were NOT 'progressives.' And, 'progressivism' had not yet reared it's ugly head.

As I said above, the founders provided a means for Amendment. That is all that is needed.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Sorry. It is you who are lacking in knoweldge.

And again we see the "I know you are but what am I" strategy of the right-wing. Yawn.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Can you describe how you think the Tea Party is trying to make it?

Sure! As soon as you admit that you don't know. If you show some willingness to ask questions with sincerity, I'll be happy to educate you. If you're going to ask question as a craven dodge against having to defend your perspective on the merits, then I'll ridicule your attempt as a rhetorical dodge.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

What makes you think that we who identify with the 'Tea Party' are "aiming to go back" to some previous and specific time in history?

What do you think the word "preserve" means?

But heck - I have to give you credit for an innovative evasion to the challenge I posed to you. In one vacuous denial you tried to both dodge the issue and dodge having to actually be pinned down with regard to precisely what it is you support. Nice try.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Do you really believe that anyone thinks that those things are not good?

Yet each one of them are progressive changes in society. Who are you to say, now, that progress should end and that things should be "preserved" as is?

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

I would only take issue with no. 2 on your list

That's because you're beholden to your own partisan perspective and insist on seeing the reasonable perspectives arrayed against yours as evil instead of just contrary.

Regardless, the specific bullet item, anti-corruption, referred to a specific time period in our history when our government officials regularly did many things hidden from public view that were corrupt. Contrast that with the things you listed which are all things that the government does in full view. That should help inform you of the difference between corruption and simply reasonable people who disagree with you. That's not to say that there isn't real corruption today. There is. The Iran-Contra affair is perhaps going to remembered as the most notable piece of corruption of our generation. But situations like that are no longer as much the norm as they were in the late 19th and early 20th century despite your vacuous self-serving claims to the contrary.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

As I said above, the founders provided a means for Amendment. That is all that is needed.

The founders also provided a means for judicial review, but you conveniently decided to ignore that and imply that ACA was unconstitutional. It seems that your principles only apply when they favor the political perspective you like.

[seashell55]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

We have a Constitution, which specifies the powers of the various branches of government, and limits those powers. The intent of the Constituion was a government that was limited, so as to not become tyrannical, as we have seen in recent years. This has happened because the Constitution is being ignored and subverted at every level, not the least example which is ObamaCare, and how it was passed, without ever having been debated openly, much less read.

This is yet another reason why liberals dislike the Tea Party - they misinterpret the Constitution every time they write the word.

Had the Founders wanted to limit the Federal Gov't as much as you seem to believe, they would have left the Articles of Confederation in place, rather than squashing them altogether and replacing them with the Constitution. They believed "the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty," and that those who use the excuse of guarding against tyranny are most likely to be the same people who become tyrants.

But don't take my word for it. Take their own words on the subject. [Federalist Paper #1-Founder Alexander Hamilton]

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by wade52

The teabaggers are coming to the end of their string.

Please use the correct title.

It's tea party. As in teaparty.org.