Welcome to PatsFans.com

Question to Tea Partiers

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    As many of you may or may not know....much of my family are self declared members of the "Tea Party". Since they claim to have been in the 'grass-rrots movement' since the beginning, I asked what the main points were. They gave me the following as an answer:

    1. Against Spending
    2. Against Taxes
    3. FOR term limits
    4. FOR limited government

    Th emain problem I have with that philosophy is the contradiction. Its really easy to SAY That now, but once a Tea Party member gets elected, they faqll victim to their own philosophy. They become na insider. How can the party gain power when once they are elected they become a lame duck in thier parties eyes? How can they build a base in congress with term limits as a political base. How can they even get enough votes to bring this kind of thing to a vote when their members should be serving limited terms?

    Also, they hated the current spending, I do too. But when confronted with the fact that over the last 8-10 years the Pentagon has lost over 5 TRILLION, they have no anger.

    They want limited government, but want the government to regulate marriages, abortions, gays in our military, etc.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR term limits, I believe congressional representation should be like jury duty, unpaid, and selected at random. I just dont see how basing a pilar of the party on such a philosophy gains the vote of anyone undecided already?

    FULL DISCLOSURE: They were unaware that the Koch brothers funded "Americans for Prosperity" , and when told that, my father said "The Koch brothers are DEAD! so.....


    My question tpo the tea party is this:


    How do you intend to affect change in congress, with a mega minority who has a foundation based on kicking out incumbants and initiating term limits?
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,985
    Likes Received:
    282
    Ratings:
    +562 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    Good post ... it's easy to run when proclaiming change. when you're in you need to expand the base ... get on powerful committees which means going along to get along. Going along to get along usually means getting some pork or approving pork. Limited government goes along with the above also.

    Bottom line is we can have a few maverick's elected to keep the others a bit honest. But once elected all bets are off ... as we all well know.
  3. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    Changes seems to work as an election theme......
    Deval Patrick & Obama were all about change.....

    I have not done my homework on the out of state tea party candidates.
    If they are running on limiting taxes, and spending then I support them
    until they prove otherwise.

    There was no bigger spender than George Bush.......
    I loved the fact he cut taxes, but he spent like a dunken sailor.

    I am as right wing as anyone on these boards, and if Bush and Clinton
    were able to run again and went head to head.... I would vote for Clinton.

    I am for limited goverment and lower taxes and I will support who ever
    runs on that platform, until they prove otherwise.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    97
    Ratings:
    +152 / 2 / -1

    HD, your post answered the 2 questions I usually have for tea partiers -- when did spending become an issue for you, and when you say "limited government," does that apply to laws and social issues or is it just lower taxes/lower spending.

    I was confused by the Koch brothers comment -- does he (wrongly) think they're dead?


    Cupofjoe: when you say limited govt, does that mean social issues, too?
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13


    1) Not against all spending, I would like spending restricted to the enumerated powers in the Constitution. This would drastically reduce spending.


    2)Not against all taxes would like to see taxes reduced drastically however prefer a Flat tax.

    3)I think Term limits would be good not as important as points 1 & 2 IMO.


    4)The government should restrict itself to the powers enumerated in the constitution. That was and still is a good prescription.



    I see a contradiction in you point here. You are maintaining that when elected you become an insider yet at the same time you are a lame duck with no influence?

    People having an opportunity to 'build a base" are more likely to have a vested interest in increasing their power using other people's money and increasing the power of government. Generally IMO it would be better if we have citizen legislator who went to congress for a limited time and then left rather than career politicians whose entire existence is focused on acquiring and maintaining power.




    2 things about military spending, Maintaining the military to defend the country is one of the few thing the Federal Government is supposed to do as per the Constitution. The 5T figure sounds like the entire Pentagon budget for the time in question? Where does this figure come from how does it relate to the entire amount spent on the military?



    Abortion: I believe in the phrase that Everybody is entitled to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and government exists to protect those rights. If the government allow Babies in the wombs to be murdered at the whim of a parent their rights are being violated. Many try to dehumanize children in the womb as they tried to deny the humanity of slave in the past, it was wrong it that case and wrong in this case.

    Gays in the military, when you go into the military you sacrifice many of your rights. The UCMJ has many provisions that don't exist for civilian defendants, where you don't have the same rights. This is done for the discipline require to fight a war where lapses in discipline causes the loss of life potentially on a massive scale.

    Marriage has always applied to men and women not same sex couples. I think we should live and let live I don't see why government should push an agenda to recreate what marriage have been in all societies over time. I don't think people should be restricted in who they live with or have as a life partner, for example people should allow whomever they designate to be their heir, their partner should have hospital visitation rights equal to family members and so on.






    Are you aware of the level of funding from G Soros and the money and favors he has gotten for his enterprises?


    The polls indicate the Tea Party isn't a mega minority the election will START to show if we have a shot at turning the country around. The Tea PArty has scared both the dems and the pubbie establishment. The goal would be a 'takeover' of the republican party, this election is just a start and nothing more. Id the pubbies were to take both houses of congress there will be a lot of work for the Tea Parties to do holding the pubbies feet to the fire.

    If you read the document the pubbies put out last week the preamble sounds good but these substance is Bush lite, not acceptable.
  6. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    I assume when you say social issues, you are talking about social programs.

    If not please let me know what you are talking about.

    I am against increasing social programs, and I believe there are a ton
    of people on SSDI, Welfare ect, who should be removed.
    Recovering addicts on methadone, for one should not be able to collect
    SSDI. I know a ton of people who have been on SSDI for years because
    of additions.

    How do I know.....
    I have been clean since 1995 and I have never needed to collect a
    nickle from the state or US goverment. I paid for my own medical
    when I went away to get clean. I knew that I only had 1 shot with
    my medical. If I was on mass health, I would be covered for a
    second program if I did not get clean on the first try.

    I see the one's who know how to work the system. They are not
    shy about sharing their knowledge on how to beat the system.

    American citizens who are handicaped or cannot work for legit medical
    reasons, should receive benefits and I am not out to cut them off or
    reduce their benefits.

    We should not cover anyone who is not a american citizen.
    People like Aunt Zeituni should not receive any type of benefit because
    they are not American citizens. The fact that she received benefits for
    years as an illegal who was on the list to be deported, showed how much
    our policy needs to change.

    Do you think American citizens should get stuck supporting people like
    Aunt Zeituni for the remainder of their life, when they are ungreatful
    and have never contributed a nickel to our country?????
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    97
    Ratings:
    +152 / 2 / -1

    13, you want ltd govt and to "live and let live" yet you want the govt to discriminate against samesex couples? Those are completely at odds.

    Permitting samesex marriage doesn't affect anybody else's marriage, and it doesn't require any church/religion to alter its requirements for marriage.

    This seems like your view on the mosque issue to me -- you're letting emotion or bias override the principles you say you're for.
  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Spending is always an issue for me, buty not how Tea-partiers think. I hate that my tax dollar is spent on non-productive things like bombs, jets or tanks that may or may not be used to kill people who will simply want to kill us back....when we could've built a school or hospital or done something productive. I'm pi$$ed at wastful spending, not just "Spending"

    The tea partiers are very upset at "spending" but when told that the military LOST 5 TRILLION dollars...they don't care. Its fukced up, IMHO.

    MOST tea partiers, are like my folks, old republicans who 'think' they are revolutionary and creating a movement. FOX news is called "The News" at their home, and they think Freedomworks is grassroots. He thought the Koch brothers were dead, and when I told him that the two guys who are tied for 9th on the worlds richest people list are alive, well and funding his' grassroots movement'...he dismissed it.

    I actually had another tea-partier scream at me in thier kitchen, calling me a liberal a-hole from california.....he then asked me to name ONE republican from Cali....

    I named 'The Governator'...he said said "he isnt a republican!" I then said "How about Ronald Reagan" speechless for a few moments, he then called us a bunch of 'Faaaaahgz'.... Then told me that he had never even been to California.

    All of the values they stated as tea-party values, would have had George W Bush as a 1 termer, or impeached. There was no such movement back then. I know what the tea-party is really about, and most in the so called party dont see it, and when confronted with facts, dismiss them so they can stay angry.

    it seems to be working, this should be an interesting November.

    But until they can get some Liberals to side with them...I think they are hurting the conservative base more than the liberal one.
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    97
    Ratings:
    +152 / 2 / -1

    No -- sorry, vague term, I now realize.

    Issues that don't involve govt spending and impact society, I suppose: gay marriage and gay adoption laws, marijuana and other drug legalization, death penalty, "3 strikes" laws, etc.

  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I wish more people knew about this, but I think something happened the next week or something that took everyone's mind off of this news:

    Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION | America Needs 435 Real Americans to run for Congress

    This: Iraq:Iraq: How did the Pentagon 'lose' $8.7 billion? - The Week

    This: Solari | The Missing Money



    thats just the money thats MISSING.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13


    I don't think it is the business to perform social engineering to redefine the meaning of marriage that has existed for tens of thousands of years across thousands of cultures to satisfy a Pc notion of fairness & equality. IF people want to live together it is fine with me.


    There are people who want to destroy the institution of marriage. The institution isn't doing to well currently (based on divorce rates) and doesn't need further attack by the government.


    Why should the government get involved in trying to socially engineering a new definition of marriage that has never existed?
  12. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    I have no problem with gay marriage.
    It doesn't cost me a penny, and it does not impact my life in any way.

    I have also changed my view on gay addoption.
    I use to be against it, but I have changed my mind
    since becoming a parent.

    I believe a child needs to go to a home that can support
    and love that child.

    I believe a child would be better off with gay parents than
    foster parents who's main concern is the check they receive, not the child.

    Trust me... I am not turing liberal.... read on.....

    I am for the death penalty (I do not want to hear about the cost).
    If it costs too much, reduce the appeal process.

    I am for 3 strikes, with exceptions.... The third strike should not be
    for stealing a video (example). Three violent crimes and you get 25 to
    life.

    I am for the current massachusetts law for Marajuana posession.
    A fine works in my eyes.

    I am against legalization of class A & Class B drugs.
    If they were legal, people who currently do not do drugs, would try
    them and they would become addicted and it would destroy their lives.

    Hope I answered your questions....
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The government should not be involved at all. By being involved, they are doing social engineering in the first place.

    How, specifically, does two gay people getting married effect your or any other marriage?

    For thousands of years and thousands of cultures, humans couldn't fly, marry someone from another culture, and thought the earth was flat.
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    They are sounds reasons for certain tradition like not marrying a sibling. Not all traditions are pointless.

    I don't think this thread is a good place for this discussion The issue of gay marriage isn't a part of the Tea Party agenda which is focused on the role of government economically, abortion isn't for that matter.
  16. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    97
    Ratings:
    +152 / 2 / -1



    I think the real question is why should government be involved in marriage at all?

    How exactly is permitting gay marriage "social engineering" or an "attack" on the institution of marriage?
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,625
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13



    It is creating a new definition of marriage that has never existed in this society or any other society. IF that isn't social engineering what is?
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    97
    Ratings:
    +152 / 2 / -1

    Cupofjoe: thanks for the reply. It's interesting (to me, anyway) how notions of liberal v conservative both straddle the smaller govt line.

    Im curious about 1 part of your response: why have even a fine for marijuana possession? Why not treat it exactly as we do booze? That seems to be the limited government approach (regs and taxes aside, of course).

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>