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.
That's my main problem with the TP movement. Where were they when we spent trillions for the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or sent 10 billion + to Pakistan? How about the pallet loads of hundred dollar bills to Iraq and our over-reliance on contractors? An army that can't feed itself or move without private contractors? That's us--bloated and ineffective, except for private business bank accounts. How about that, tea partiers? At least health care benefits Americans (except that the insurance companies have their bank accounts offshore, likely)
First bolded portion...
They are disgruntled conservative americans who have failed to solve the problem within their own party.
The movement has been created to address the problems. No one is saying this movement came together to advance the purposes of the Republican party - status quo. The effort is to re-align the Republican party with conservative values and uphold the Constitution. Many agree Republicans have lost their identity. For a new movement, I think it has done an amazing job of identifying itself and working through some initial misunderstandings of how it could best accomplish its goals / in fact to even understand its goals. This movement is not funded by our tax dollars, as is its opposition. Given the Goliath it faces, the rate it has grown, the impact it has already had - it is impressive indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
American values defined how? 96% of the country is not in favor of American values? Maybe they're simply not in favor of your interpretation of said values? Or perhaps people like myself see YOU as a key element of the de-evolution of American values. In other words, you created a ch*t storm with 30yrs of insane policy endorsements and now see fit to blame the sky.
1.) I disagree with your estimate of the country's leaning. Could you produce some facts to base that on? I refer to Americal values defined as the freedoms and liberties protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
an example- -
The fact that we can openly disagree is a protected right. Liberty protects my right to make my own choices. Conservative / Constitutional values protect you from those time in which my choices could limit or negatively impact YOUR liberties. i.e. if I have the right to act on my desire to silence your opposition to the Tea Party Movement (which I don't actually have or I would not be engaged in this conversation...) I would be infringing on your constitutionally protected right to free speech under the First Amendment.
Other Conservative / American / Constituional values would include:
the right to work hard, save my money, and do with it what I please. I derive great joy from being able to support causes that do thigs I think are great. I derive joy from being able to help people in need. I also derive joy from being debt-free and controlled by no one.
The flip side of this libery is that I could choose irresponsibility, and I have the right to work through its consequences. There is no better teacher than consequence. I am not speaking in any way to people who have lived within their means, managed to stay out of debt and then had no choice but to sink into debt because of job loss. I do believe when this hand is dealt a family help should be provided. Free and prosperous people of this country have always given freely to those in need (Katrina, Haiti, AIDS etc etc). That is, according to scripture, why God allows need - - it is to enable the people He prospers to be a conduit of His blessings.
2.) regarding policy endorsements - back to my first statement, had the Repubs acted according to what they were supposed to stand for, things would be different. A significant house-cleaning is underway. Based on your statement I have to assume you believe the policies endorsed by the dems are good. In which case we should all be glad the conservatives are coming to the rescue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
Second bolded portion...
Had your house been in order, legitimate debates would take place in the spirit our founders proscribed even prior to implementing the constitution, but punctuated by the constitution just the same. STATESMANSHIP and STEWARDSHIP being operative words, a concept few men can grasp these days. I cannot begin to tell you how repugnant it is to see self identifying conservatives so far removed from those concepts.
Agreed. As previously stated, the Tea Party movement is the conservative response to that problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
Any reason why you folks can't stand solidly on the truth? We get a dump truck load of manure in our mailboxes smearing anyone who <gasp> fails to agree with you. Good thing Neocon incorporated didn't legislate that down everyones throats or the Tea Party would be under arrest (by the very mines you meant to lay 'protecting democracy'). Any reason why your brand of truth can't manage to hold water without embellishment?
Monkeys flinging poo is not a step forward for evolution, nor does it result in your own house being in order. It does result in a global mess.
An honest scrutiny of history will reveal where these tactics began.
That's fine. Now go show some "regard for the Constitution" in the democratic & time-honored way, by actually winning some elections (like Obama and all the Legislators did). Then we'll see that they're not just a noisy fringe, whose only skill is throwing childish tantrums whenever they don't get the "respect" or "attention" that they think they're "entitled" to.
Hopefully we will never fall to the tactics employed by Obama - ACORN, blatant deception to name a few. In case you haven't noticed, we have started "winning some elections" (even though we are not a political party and are not running for anything). Scott Brown's win of Kennedy's former seat was an example of Tea Party action.
And the only childish tantrums we've seen have been courtesy of the left. Could you give an example? The objection we have is that the media is not telling the people the truth. Anyone who has attended a TP rally then watched the media's spin on it knows what I'm talking about. Mainstream media is doing a huge disservice to the public by loosing sight of what journalism is supposed to be. They are forming public opinion not objectively reporting on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
Oh, and if they really want to be taken seriously, it wouldn't hurt if they start getting some control over the obvious bigotry, hysterical rhetoric & "moranic" spelling, even if it's not "representative" (Fascism!, Socialism!, "Witch Doctors", "Obama's a Nazi!", etc.). If you folks can't sort out your "message", how do you expect anybody else to?
Like stated in a previous comment, the Tea Party movement is not funded by our tax dollars, as is its opposition. It is grass roots, mainstream America, not always polished, not given to huge outlays of cash for a protest sign, coming together to communicate to their public servants in this way because they've unplugged their fax machines and plugged their ears as well. There is no central oversight of the signs, and yes, sometimes we do cringe at some of them. We have also been infiltrated by the "crash the tea party" folks, whose misspelled and (at times grossly) inappropriate signs are being counted as our own. And by the way, their 1st Amendment rights are upheld at the Tea Party rallys as well. We even commended them for coming out and having their voices heard.
Regarding the accusations we make of fascism / socialism - they are not far from the mark. While obviously not purely socialist (totally - we've been somewhat socialist for a long time) nor purely fascist, we are leaning further in that direction. This movement seeks to awaken people to where we are headed and enable them to make a choice - while there is still the opportunity.
And lastly, we might have a confused message to you and the critics - but the message is somehow being understood by its targets. Things are happening!
That's my main problem with the TP movement. Where were they when we spent trillions for the past decade in and Iraq? Or sent 10 billion + to Pakistan? How about the pallet loads of hundred dollar bills to Iraq and our over-reliance on contractors? An army that can't feed itself or move without private contractors? That's us--bloated and ineffective, except for private business bank accounts. How about that, tea partiers? At least health care benefits Americans (except that the insurance companies have their bank accounts offshore, likely)
Your assessment is a little off base. You believe we should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is your right. I happen to believe it was the right decision. With that said, why would I protest something I believe in?
What is you problem with contractors? They fill a need. your hatred for the free market is all over your posts.
The debt under Bush is like borrowing money to buy a car. We can afford a Chevy at $25,000 dollars. So I borrow that amount. Obama has bought a $150,00 dollar Rolls Royce, which we cannot afford.
Big difference.
And you think the new health care isn't going to put us in more debt.
The movement has been created to address the problems.
You're not addressing problems. You're satisfying yourself with superficial diagnosis analysis and shifting blame around infinitely. Freedomworks and FOX created your organization. Both have demonstrated themselves to be traitors to their country and a severe drain on the integrity of what should be the conservative party. You've enlisted your efforts in a mutual admiration society with the very people undermining the republican party from within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
No one is saying this movement came together to advance the purposes of the Republican party - status quo. The effort is to re-align the Republican party with conservative values and uphold the Constitution.
Correction. No one has admitted this movement came together to advance the purposes of the republican party, but that is your objective measured in conduct on the ground, not adjectives of pundits or justifications in threads.
Would this truly be about the Republicans getting their house in order, this family feud you carry on in our nations capital would be taking place on the steps of GOP headquarters relentlessly until it was made right. I would support those efforts strongly because it would reflect you taking responsibility for your own party. Instead we get a rag tag laundry list of gripes from a mob of people harassing government employees trying to manage a crisis. Instead we get guerilla tactics in media and conservative constituents verbally attacking the other half of this country, not directing it's attention to it's own porch.
Lets contrast your statement (since you've admitted this is a splinter group of the republican party) with the statement sold the public at inception. This was not a party affiliated with either dem nor republican, independent of all, we answer to none. We want to unite concerned Americans to meaningfully change the direction we are going. Of course all Americans want fluffy white clouds and blue skies, but for you to presume you know what direction we ought to be going in presumes you ever knew where we were, where we were going, or where we are now. I've seen no evidence from Tea members, patrons giving speeches, pundits cheering you on with rhetoric, that a single one of you have more than a single inch on a map and claim to comprehend the globe. You then proceed to formally post a mission statement that regurgitates neo conservative mantras. NEOCON VER 3.2 You built your house on sand-- the original was bad code, and the bad code just keeps compounding the dysfunction. Neoconservativism IS fiscal liberalism, the only difference being who is the victor of the spoils.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
Many agree Republicans have lost their identity.
This subject is a dozen threads unto itself. When LIBERALS are begging conservatives to please be conservative, what's wrong with this picture? Conservative has never been a cuss word until those animated with hatred, disrespect and treachery call themselves conservative. The policing Republicans are called to do is strictly in house. Police yourselves. I would respect that immensely. We need conservatives well and they are ill now. Please get well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
For a new movement, I think it has done an amazing job of identifying itself and working through some initial misunderstandings of how it could best accomplish its goals / in fact to even understand its goals. This movement is not funded by our tax dollars, as is its opposition. Given the Goliath it faces, the rate it has grown, the impact it has already had - it is impressive indeed.
You're speaking to someone who worked on a real grassroots campaign-- Ross Perot Reform party AKA Independence Party. I know the difference, and the abuse of the meaning grassroots is very offensive to me. No movement is funded by tax dollars, but yours is subsidized by a vast right wing think tank giving common man conservatives something to do while it tries to spin all responsibility away from itself.
Goliath you face is what? Your very language is betraying you-- look at yourself!!! You speak as if your fellow countrymen are enemies. Who put that in your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
1.) I disagree with your estimate of the country's leaning. Could you produce some facts to base that on?
96% of this country is not a Tea Party member was the meaning of my statement. In other words, 96% of Americans 'failing to agree' with you should read to you that the content of your groups message is not endorsed by the majority.
Our leanings as a country is a very broad heading and you misinterpreted a great deal. Misinterpretation is a common theme among Tea members and populist conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
I refer to Americal values defined as the freedoms and liberties protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
an example- -
I've got to cut you off here-- you're unaware I'm a veteran. I feel myself above lecture if I defended our constitution and your right to free speech with my very life. Sound fair to you?
Fact is not one American has told any of you thou shalt not speak. No level of our government is interfering with your right to assembly or to discuss issues or to protest or any such extraneous nonsensical accusations of oppression thrown about by right wing hacks. The false accusations only drain what little credibility remains in the party, so just quit. This American is saying I don't agree with any of the content coming out of your mouths, how you are conducting yourselves, or what your objectives are as a movement. I represent a portion of that 96% majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
Based on your statement I have to assume you believe the policies endorsed by the dems are good. In which case we should all be glad the conservatives are coming to the rescue.
You don't have to assume anything. You could just ask directly and I'd answer you genuinely, so I'll pretend you just did for the sake of moving this discussion along.
The policies endorsed by the dems-- you mean bailouts? Pumping outrageous sums of $$$ into the economy? No one likes that. No party likes that. As per every known expert, try as I may to find a dissenting view or alternative plan offered back in that time. That's what became necessary when we followed neocon economic plan for decades and it blew up in our faces.
As far as I'm concerned, every single dime was actually spent the day Reaganomics went into effect because deregulation was the chow call for hyennas licking their chops. Deregulation is the phase 2 license for corporations to loot the treasury. The phase 1 of licensing was campaign finance and lobbyist $$$- reforms of which should have been authored by we the people, not McCain/Feingold, because they were beholden to the very apple cart dictating their careers. Institutionalized bribery is still bribery, and every citizen ought to be coming together regardless of party affiliations to end this crime permanently. It would also help your stated mission to get the integrity back into the conservative party. Would that be your sincerest intention, you will have to get their hands unclenched from the monkey trap of special interest groups that has hobbled every politician for a century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSO
An honest scrutiny of history will reveal where these tactics began.
Thank you for admitting that tactics are being used. I appreciate honesty, no matter how awful the truth might be. I can take it, I'm a tough old bird.
The problem with fighting fire with fire is the scorched earth policy kills everyone, even those who tolerated your right to free speech but agreed with neither. Who started this? That's highly debatable, but I'll bet who finishes it. Should the rest of us follow your lead and take you both out before you kill us all?
The problem with an eye for an eye is that it leaves everyone blind. Another personal favorite of mine--- in the feast of ego everyone goes hungry. We have yellow journalism accusing outrageous lies in all directions and the truth is lost to a large % of voters. Why are you feeding the erosion of faith people have in media, in government, in political parties, and in America itself?
Would conservatives truly get back to their roots, they would remember that the constitution was authored and signed by men who were unwilling to engage in petty battles, but held fast to defend and protect the higher purpose, the greater good of our nation. This means present tense that instead of wallowing in glory days, we need conservatives to put their brains together and show up to the table with practical solutions in hand. Every moment conservatives have spent their time willing to win at any price, this nation has lost immeasurably. Make yourselves worthy of that higher ground. Lead by example and see who follows. Buying into the notion you must hate liberals in order to define yourselves as conservatives renders you unworthy of your citizenship.
Your assessment is a little off base. You believe we should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is your right. I happen to believe it was the right decision. With that said, why would I protest something I believe in?
What is you problem with contractors? They fill a need. your hatred for the free market is all over your posts..
I'm not liberal and I've got a huge problem being lured into war under false pretenses. Lying to congress about something with life and death consequences should mean death for the liar. Instead, one of them was paid a million tax dollars to lie.
I also have a huge problem with no bid contractors, subcontracting out guns for hire, or abusing my brothers in arms as mercenaries for hire on international market.
I've never opposed free market. I oppose crooked markets. The question begs to be asked why have you endorsed a crooked market if you're a conservative?
The 'obvious bigotry' in the TEA party rallies again. Bigotry is such an easy label to toss out these days. Ya know, Iwas reading another thread about the TEA rallies, and a certain liberal poster on here labeled Michelle Malkin an 'anchor baby' in a rant about her support for the TEA parties. "Anchor baby"?
Did you ask them? Listening to both sides as often as I have all these years, I interpret that statement to mean that conservatives (almost always opposed to illegal immigration, opposed to anchor baby) need to think again about how they apply their concept of policy because a conservative who technically would be considered an anchor baby would have citizenship revoked and be deported. It's my understanding that liberals believe illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty or otherwise defended consistently with legal immigrants. I disagree strongly with them, but I'm not seeing the offense.
Specifically in context of standard positions each party takes, I fail to see how this liberal you're referencing could be considered making a bigoted statement. Would Michelle Malkin be classified as an anchor baby or would she not (if that policy were implemented)? Michelle Malkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Malkin was born in Philadelphia to Rafaela, a schoolteacher, and Apolo, an aspiring doctor--[3] both Philippine citizens who had arrived in the U.S. earlier that year. At the time, her father was a physician-in-training with an employer-sponsored visa.
Of course the ranting part, or what their affiliation-- you'd need to link that thread page to this one. You're leaving us guessing with characterizations we can't witness for ourselves. A 'liberal' supporting tea party- imagine that's an odd sight in henderson cheering on ann coulter. Sounds fishy.
Mostly we see in the media are the tea parties with the Hate Obama signs and other ignorance.
That is not nearly the whole story of the tea party though.
Many are hard working white and blue collar professionals. Many are wealthy, educated and enlightened. Some are socially over conservative some are socially liberal/libertarian. Mostly it is about fighting to get our leaders to be more fiscally responsible with our hard earned tax dollars.
You will not see that part from the media though and the MSM and Obama drones will only perpetuate all of the negative stories about the tea party movement.
My biggest hangup is that the tea parties did not take off until after 1/20/09 when we really needed them long before that.
i think that the idea for the tea parties started with the bailouts, when americans started getting anti government. (which would be a natural progression from a bailout). i think until the government overreached that badly, most people trusted the government at least somewhat or were naive about what the government could actually do.
other countries started their own movements with the bailouts-just look at iceland for example. all these movements are quite independent of obama's election, although his big government stance isn't helping him out.
Did you ask them? Listening to both sides as often as I have all these years, I interpret that statement to mean that conservatives (almost always opposed to illegal immigration, opposed to anchor baby) need to think again about how they apply their concept of policy because a conservative who technically would be considered an anchor baby would have citizenship revoked and be deported. It's my understanding that liberals believe illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty or otherwise defended consistently with legal immigrants. I disagree strongly with them, but I'm not seeing the offense.
Specifically in context of standard positions each party takes, I fail to see how this liberal you're referencing could be considered making a bigoted statement. Would Michelle Malkin be classified as an anchor baby or would she not (if that policy were implemented)? Michelle Malkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course the ranting part, or what their affiliation-- you'd need to link that thread page to this one. You're leaving us guessing with characterizations we can't witness for ourselves. A 'liberal' supporting tea party- imagine that's an odd sight in henderson cheering on ann coulter. Sounds fishy.
i know nothing about michelle, but wouldn't her dad be legal by definition if he had an immigrant visa, so no anchor baby status?
i doubt if there are many liberals in the tea party movement, but i am sure that some moderate democrats are also concerned about the spending level and the future indebtedness and interest payments due.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Saw a perfect example today of what's wrong with the whole "Tea Party" bunch. This afternoon, about a dozen or so of them were demonstrating at a couple street corners in town, and they were advertising for an upcoming Tea Party organizing meeting, along with waving a bunch of signs airing their "grievances".
1. The advertised meeting is going to be held at a local church (and the most "Fundamentalist" one, natch).
2. Of the aprox. 10 signs, only 2 were about "taxes", while the rest were all over the place, about everything from Israel to "Socialism".
3. Most of it was basically just against Obama, and the policies his presidency supports (foreign & domestic).
4. Except for the little kids they enlisted, the "protestors" were nearly all white & middle-aged, and mostly male.
5. For a supposedly "representative"movement", surprisingly few people seemed to be supportive, honk, etc., this in a largely conservative rural small town!
6. Why can't they ever SPELL ("Obama leave Isreal alone!")!?
Last edited by mateo45; 04-18-2010 at 05:55 AM..
Reason: spelling...!
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.
Maybe they're simply not in favor of your interpretation of said values? Or perhaps people like myself see YOU as a key element of the de-evolution of American values. In other words, you created a ch*t storm with 30yrs of insane policy endorsements and now see fit to blame the sky.
